uk national action plan on farm animal genetic resources

UK National Action Plan onFarm Animal Genetic ResourcesNovember 2006

Front Cover Photos:

Top Left: Holstein cattle grazing (Courtesy of Holstein UK).

Top Right: British Milk Sheep halfbred with triplets (Courtesy of Lawrence Alderson).

Bottom Left: Tamworth pig in bracken (Courtesy of Dunlossit Estate, Islay).

Bottom Right: Red Dorking male (Photograph by John Ballard, Courtesy of The Cobthorn Trust).

UK National Action Plan on FarmAnimal Genetic Resources

November 2006

Presented to Defra and the Devolved Administrationsby the National Steering Committee for FarmAnimal Genetic Resources

Contents

Foreword 3

1. Executive Summary 4

1.1. Overview 41.2. List of recommended actions 4

2. Introduction 11

2.1. Why we need to protect our Farm Animal Genetic Resources 112.1.1. Economic, social and cultural importance of the UK’s FAnGR 112.1.2. International obligation to protect our FAnGR 142.1.3. Impact of national policies on the UK’s FAnGR 142.2. Why we need a National Action Plan 152.3. Structure of the Plan 16

3. What, and where, are our Farm Animal Genetic Resources? 17

3.1. Introduction 173.2. Identification of the UK’s Farm Animal Genetic Resources 173.2.1. Describing breeding population structures 173.2.2. Creating a UK National Breed Inventory 193.2.3. Definition of a breed 193.2.4. Characterisation 203.2.5. Molecular characterisation 213.3. Monitoring 213.3.1. Monitoring breeds 223.3.2. Information Portal 223.3.3. Frequency of monitoring and review 233.3.4. Breed societies 233.3.5. Filling the gaps in quantifying available resources 243.3.6. Monitoring geographical distribution 243.3.7. Mainstream breed monitoring 25

4. How should we look after and use our FAnGR? 26

4.1. Introduction 264.2. How should we look after our FAnGR? 264.3. Which FAnGR should we preserve? 274.3.1 Is the breed native or exotic? 274.3.2 Is the breed mainstream or at risk? 284.4. What are the conservation options? 314.5. Identifying sustainable uses and stimulating demand for our FAnGR 324.5.1. Changing Government policies on food and farming 324.5.2. Impact of changes in farming systems on the nation’s FAnGR 33

1

UK National Action Plan on Farm Animal Genetic Resources

4.6. Actions to encourage sustainable use of our FAnGR 344.6.1. Communication of information on FAnGR 344.6.2. Highlighting and demonstrating best practice 374.6.3. Training and capacity building 414.6.4. Research and development 414.6.5. Resource needs 43

5. What can Government do to help? 44

5.1. General policy 445.2. Food production and security policy 445.2.1. Quantity and quality of production affecting genetic resources 445.3. Food safety and genetic diversity 455.4. Rural socio-economic policy 485.4.1. Rural Development Plans and genetic resources 485.4.2. Countryside access 505.5. Environmental policy 515.6. Animal health and welfare policy 525.6.1. Animal disease regulations and their impact on FAnGR 525.6.2. Animal welfare policy and links with FAnGR policy 545.7. Animal breeding, zootechnics and genetic resources for food and

agriculture 545.7.1. Animal breeding and zootechnics 545.7.2. Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture 55

6. References 57

Annex 1: Membership of NSC 58

Annex 2: Remit of NSC 59

Annex 3: Working definitions of native and feral 60

Annex 4: Proposed list of data for collection in the Standardised Template 61

Annex 5: Prioritised list of legislation for action related to FAnGR 62

Annex 6: Zootechnics legislation 66

Annex 7: Abbreviations and Acronyms 68

Annex 8: Web-links – in order of appearance 70

2


The UK’s Farm Animal Genetic Resources (FAnGR) are of great economic, social andcultural importance. For these reasons alone it is important that we care for them.Additionally, we have national and international obligations to do so.

We already have a strong tradition of caring for our FAnGR in the UK – thanks largelyto the activities of individual breeders, breed societies, charities and non-governmentalorganisations. However, the threat to our FAnGR is growing, for a variety of reasons,including the spread of relatively few, specialised breeds and the growing economicpressures on primary producers. In a few cases Government policy in other areas, suchas in disease control, has led to unintended risks to our FAnGR. So, more needs tobe done.

In 2002 the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), withcontributions from the Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department(SEERAD), the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development Northern Ireland(DARDNI) and the Welsh Assembly Government (WAG), published the UK CountryReport on Farm Animal Genetic Resources. This was the United Kingdom’s officialcontribution to the FAO’s “First Report on the State of the World’s Animal GeneticResources” to be published in 2007 as part of FAO’s Global Strategy.

The Report identified some major gaps in our management of FAnGR, and concludedwith strong recommendations that: (i) there should be a National Action Plan for FarmAnimal Genetic Resources based on the recommendations in the Report, and (ii) aNational Steering Committee on Farm Animal Genetic Resources should be constitutedto formulate the Plan and drive it forward.

Both of these recommendations were accepted by the relevant GovernmentDepartments. The National Steering Committee on Farm Animal Genetic Resources wasestablished as an ad hoc advisory committee, initially for a two-year period, and thecommittee met for the first time in January 2004. The membership of the committee isshown in Annex 1. The primary aim of the committee was to produce this NationalAction Plan (its full remit is shown in Annex 2).

The Plan is intended to build on our strong tradition of non-governmental commitmentto protecting our FAnGR. But, there are clearly areas where Government input andresources are needed, both to improve outcomes of Government policies, and to helpco-ordinate the activities of others.

We commend this National Action Plan to Ministers in the relevant GovernmentDepartments, and look forward to helping Government, industry and otherstakeholders with its implementation.

Professor Geoff SimmChairNational Steering Committee on Farm Animal Genetic ResourcesOctober 2006

3

Foreword

1.1 OverviewThe UK’s Farm Animal Genetic Resources (FAnGR) – its farm animal breeds, strains andvarieties, and the variability within them – are of great economic, social and culturalimportance.

This National Action Plan has been produced at the request of UK Government ruralaffairs departments, in response to one of the major recommendations of the UKCountry Report on Animal Genetic Resources, published in 2002.

The plan was produced by the National Steering Committee on Farm Animal GeneticResources, the membership of which is shown in Annex 1.

The Plan considers:

• Why we need to protect our Farm Animal Genetic Resources (FAnGR), andhow a National Action Plan can help.

• What, and where, are our Farm Animal Genetic Resources?

• How should we look after and use our FAnGR?

• What can Government do to help?

The plan identifies 38 Recommended Actions to help in the protection and sustainableuse of our FAnGR, and these are summarised below.

The Plan also refers to web-links within the text (underlined phrases in blue) which arethe source of further information or interest. An address list of these links is given inAnnex 8, in order of appearance.

1.2 List of Recommended Actions1. The National Steering Committee should be constituted as a UK standing

committee, to provide a permanent forum for advising Government and otherstakeholders on issues relating to FAnGR, and to oversee implementation of, andfurther develop, the National Action Plan.

2. Defra and the Devolved Administrations should commission a series of BreedingStructure Reports for each UK livestock sector, and update these every six years.

3. The existing UK National Breed Database should be upgraded into a web-basedUK National Breed Inventory using the European Farm Animal BiodiversityInformation System (EFABIS), as appropriate, to ensure compatibility with and linksto European and UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) Domestic Animal

4


1 Executive Summary

Diversity Information System (DAD-IS) databases. Clear links with the LivestockRegister (and the National Equine Database) in Defra and equivalent databasesin the Devolved Administrations should be established.

4. The UK National Co-ordinator, with guidance from the NSC (with additionalexpertise as necessary), should populate and maintain the UK National BreedInventory, identifying which breeds should be classified as mainstream or atrisk, native, exotic or feral etc. The use of the term breed within the inventoryshould be consistent with definitions of inter-governmental bodies such as theEU and FAO.

Further, the NSC should:

• provide guidance for UK Government on the appropriateness of anyproposed EU definition of a breed, and the implications such a definitionmay have for UK policy, industry activity and FAnGR management; and

• keep under review the scope of the inventory and its use of terms to ensureit is relevant to the management of FAnGR.

5. There is a need for greater, but cost-effective, scientific characterisation ofthose breeds to be incorporated into the UK National Breed Inventory – e.g.through EU initiatives and partnership with conservation programmes, butensuring sound comparisons of resources in the same environment – withpriorities on:

• disease resistance;

• quality of meat and/or other products;

• behavioural or physiological differences leading to increased ‘fitness’ forspecific environments or management regimes e.g. conservation grazing.

More research is needed on effective targeting of breed characterisation studies.

6. A short review of molecular characterisation studies on UK livestock shouldbe commissioned, including their adequacy in relation to Molecular DomesticAnimal Diversity (MoDAD) procedures and advising on priorities for any futurestudies. Studies should be commissioned to address the priorities identified.

7. The NSC should oversee the development of a suitable Standardised Templateto monitor breeds for incorporation into the National Breed Inventory and ensurethat information is collected to help assess the risk posed to our national FAnGR.

8. The NSC should ensure that the GRFA Information Portal being developed byDefra fulfils the needs of FAnGR stakeholders by:

5


• linking the web-based UK National Breed Inventory (in Recommendation 3)to the web portal;

• ensuring the uploading and updating procedures can facilitate monitoring ofFAnGR;

• obtaining accurate and objective information on breeds, activities and issuesin relation to FAnGR as described in the Standardised Template inRecommended Action 7.

9. The NSC should review and update ‘monitoring data’ in the UK National BreedInventory in a 3 yearly cycle with sequential reviews of: (i) sheep and goats; (ii)cattle, pigs, and horses; and (iii) poultry.

10. The procedure for obtaining information from breed societies and breedingcompanies and the content of the information should be reviewed by the NSC,in the light of the needs of the Standardised Template recommended above(Recommended Action 7) and the opportunities offered by the GRFA InformationPortal.

11. Breed societies should be encouraged to make all herd and flock bookselectronic to facilitate the uploading of monitoring information, as defined inthe Standardised Template, to the National Breed Inventory via the GRFAInformation Portal.

12. Procedures for quantifying resources not included within herd and flockbooks should be formalised by the NSC.

13. A project – to be steered by NSC – should be commissioned, to build on anddefine:

• robust qualifications for a breeding nucleus essential to the survival of abreed, with or without cryopreserved genetic material as a backup, andparticularly when the breed is geographically concentrated;

• how best to quantify degree of concentration and thresholds forpreservation action;

• the feasibility and practicality of the necessary data collection, includingthe population size and location of holdings; and

• breeds at risk as a result of geographical concentration, using the preferredmeasures defined above.

14. Industry and Government stakeholders should work together: (i) to improve therecording of livestock breed data before finalising the requirements of theLivestock Register, and (ii) to speed the development of routine linking (throughcommon formats for animals and holdings) of key databases containinginformation important for the sustainable management of the UK’s FAnGR.

6


15. The prioritisation of native breeds for conservation should continue as atpresent, but exotic breeds in the UK which are extinct in their country of originand severely endangered globally, or which make an important economiccontribution to UK agriculture, may also need conservation action. More work isneeded to identify exotic FAnGR that fall into these categories.

16. Defra and the Devolved Administrations should commission a cost-benefitanalysis of FAnGR to the rural economy. The study should be steered by NSC,link to that in Recommended Action 19, and include the roles of FAnGR of allfarmed species in agribusiness, leisure and tourism. The results should be used asa guide to prioritisation for conservation action.

17. The NSC should establish and keep under review the thresholds and prioritylevels for conservation action of breeds using scientifically robust criteria,further developing these as necessary. Thresholds for geographical concentration,local adaptation and breed distinctiveness, including use of other breeds orstrains, need to be more clearly defined.

18. We recommend that the NSC should advise on strategies for geneticconservation actions as part of risk management in mainstream breeds, andhighlight corrective actions that may be needed in mainstream breeds orstrains where selection strategies appear to be producing unfavourableconsequences for health, welfare or ‘fitness’ of animals.

19. A project – to be steered by the NSC – should be commissioned to develop aco-ordinated in situ and ex situ National FAnGR Conservation Strategy forbreeds at risk, and mainstream breeds that qualify for priority action, taking intoaccount the conservation work already being carried out by NGOs and breedsocieties. The project should include an evaluation of the costs and benefits ofalternative approaches, and link with Recommended Action 16.

20. Defra and the Devolved Administrations should identify opportunities withinexisting and developing national and EU legislation, such as European AgriculturalFund for Rural Development (EAFRD), to encourage the use of FAnGR that arefit for purpose in delivering complementary policy objectives. “Stand alone”genetic resource measures to support owners of at-risk FAnGR who do not qualify for any other complementary scheme should also be considered(see Recommended Action 29).

21. The NSC, with other partners and external communications expertise, shoulddevelop a Communication Plan to:

• create wide awareness of the information resources available on FAnGR; and

• develop future FAnGR information provision in a way that is most helpful todecision-makers.

7


22. The NSC should identify and publicise ‘success stories’ where commercialactivities (e.g. speciality food marketing) or environmental managementprogrammes have been developed around the use of non-mainstream FAnGR.

23. The NSC should seek resources to develop and repackage material on the GRFAInformation Portal to facilitate its use in schools, colleges and universities, aspart of taught courses, or via distance learning. The material should be updatedregularly. The availability of this material should then be publicised widely.

24. The NSC should work with industry stakeholders to identify a programme ofrelevant training courses relating to FAnGR, to identify possible fundingopportunities to develop such courses, and to identify appropriate groups todeliver them.

25. The NSC should help to identify research and development needs andpriorities to support the protection and sustainable use of FAnGR, help to identifyrelevant funding routes, and to disseminate R&D results.

26. The National Action Plan should act as the linking framework on which toidentify and collate resource sharing from a wide range of stakeholders, some ofwhom may have conflicting priorities.

27. The NSC should engage policy makers implementing post CAP Reform livestockstrategy, at central and regional level, on the importance of mainstreamingFAnGR policy into all sustainable food and farming strategies. Sustainableuse of FAnGR is the starting point for all sustainable livestock production chains.The NSC should monitor the impact of CAP reform on FAnGR and alert therelevant policy makers to any corrective action needed.

28. The NSC should continue to actively monitor the impact of the NationalScrapie Plan (NSP) and the Northern Ireland Scrapie Plan (NISP) on geneticdiversity in sheep breeds. The findings of research on the impact of the NSPshould be fed into policy development of the NSP and future breeding schemedesign.

29. The UK National Co-ordinator for FAnGR should:

• Monitor closely the progress of the new EAFRD proposals, interveningwhere necessary in the negotiations and liaising with policymakers on theinclusion of ‘stand alone’ genetic resource measures (other than headagepayments) into national rural development plans in support of flexibleactions to conserve and utilise FAnGR.

8


• Liaise with policy makers to ensure that payments supportingendangered native breeds provided for under agri-environmentalmeasures in the new EAFRD regulation are incorporated into new ruraldevelopment plans.

30. The UK National Co-ordinator for FAnGR should monitor legal action takenunder Countryside Rights of Way (CROW) in England and Wales and anynegative impact on the willingness of livestock keepers to conserve FAnGR ontheir land.

31. The UK National Co-ordinator for FAnGR should commission publicly co-fundedR&D to model/characterise breeds for their lifecycle nutrient efficiency and toinvestigate the incorporation of lifecycle nutrient efficiency traits intobreeding programmes in all livestock species.

32. In respect of the Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD) Directive, the NSC shouldadvise Government on a scientifically and legally robust definition of a nucleusunit essential to the survival of the breed, with or without cryopreserved geneticmaterial as a backup, particularly where that breed is not numerically rare but isgeographically concentrated.

33. When the new EU Avian Influenza Directive is implemented in the UK, thespecial provisions to protect rare poultry breeds should be transposed into UKlegislation. This will require an improved data set on UK poultry breedingholdings. The NSC, in consultation with relevant species associations, should havea key role in advising policymakers on applying these special measures and beinvolved in the subsequent implementation process.

34. The UK National Co-ordinator should monitor and contribute to the developmentof livestock disease control policies that may impact on FAnGR and beinvolved in any changes to parent legislation where appropriate.

35. In response to the 2004 Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) Report on theWelfare Implications of Animal Breeding and Breeding Technologies inCommercial Agriculture, Defra should trigger regular, formal exchanges of viewsbetween the NSC and FAWC on livestock breeding technologies and programmesand their impact on animal welfare.

36. The NSC, through the UK National Co-ordinator for FAnGR, should carefullymonitor developments in zootechnical legislation, encourage deeperintegration between zootechnics and FAnGR policy and develop bettercommunication with other stakeholders such as breed societies.

9


37. NGOs and research providers should be encouraged to participate in trans-national FAnGR projects under the new European Genetic ResourcesRegulation 870/2004. Defra and the Devolved Administrations should, whereverpossible, make match funding available for suitable projects.

38. The UK National Co-ordinator for FAnGR, should continue to play an active partat global and European regional level, through existing FAO structures such asthe European Regional Focal Point for FAnGR (ERFP), in the development of asustainable policy on farm animal genetic diversity.

10


2.1 Why we need to protect our Farm Animal GeneticResources

2.1.1 Economic, social and cultural importance of the UK’s FAnGR

The UK’s Farm Animal Genetic Resources (FAnGR) – its farm animal breeds, strains andvarieties, and the variability within them – are of great economic, social and culturalimportance.

The food and drink industry is the UK’s largest manufacturing sector worth almost£70 billion per annum and accounting for over 15% of all manufacturing turnover.The production, processing, and preservation of meat and meat products alone isresponsible for almost 19% of food and drink manufacturing turnover. On its own,dairy farming represents the largest agricultural sector worth £2.7 billion, accountingfor around 20% of agricultural production. The success of the livestock sector dependsheavily on the performance and capabilities of our livestock breeds and strains thatdeliver the industry’s raw materials. Hence, our FAnGR have a crucial role at the verystart of the food chain, and there are strong economic arguments for ensuring that wemanage these resources in a sustainable way.

Livestock farming, and the food industries based on it, also have an important socialrole over and above their direct contribution to the UK economy. Livestock farmingoccupies over one third of land area in the UK. Hence, it has an important role inshaping the countryside enjoyed by so many. The presence of livestock themselves, andtheir regional diversity, is a very positive feature for many who live in, work in, or visitthe countryside. Furthermore, in many of the most socially and economically fragileareas of the UK, livestock farming is a core, underpinning economic activity, on whichwhole communities depend. For all of these reasons, we need to be aware of and carefor our FAnGR.

The UK has a very rich diversity of livestock breeds – over 130 native breeds of poultry,cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, horses and ponies in total, of which approximately 100 areat risk (see Appendix 3 of the UK Country Report on Farm Animal Genetic Resources2002). Many of these breeds have strong regional roots, and have played an importantrole in the development of regional rural economies. Some have played an importantrole in the economic and social development of the nation, and in the development ofmany other nations besides. Each has an interesting history, which deserves to be told.Hence, careful stewardship of our FAnGR is important for aesthetic, cultural andhistorical reasons too.

11


2 Introduction

http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/policy/geneticresources/animalgenetics.pdf

Box 1: Robert Bakewell, pioneer of selective breeding of farm livestock

Robert Bakewell (1725-1795) is recognised worldwide as the father of selectivebreeding of farm livestock. He pioneered the recording of, and selection for,economically-important characteristics in farm livestock, and the recording ofpedigrees (ancestry). Bakewell was particularly effective in improving theperformance of sheep in his native Leicestershire – his Dishley or New EnglishLeicester breed growing much faster and reaching market sooner than its forebears.Several other British and overseas sheep breeds are direct descendants of Bakewell’sDishley Leicester. Bakewell’s methods were emulated by many followers and this ledto the creation of many improved livestock breeds in the late 18th and early 19thcentury1,2. This important development within the UK served as a model worldwide.Hence, there are strong ‘heritage’ reasons for conserving our traditional breeds.

12


‘Robert Bakewell at DishleyGrange’ by John Boultbee(Courtesy of the RoyalAgricultural Societyof England).

2.1.2 International obligation to protect our FAnGR

As one of 150 signatories to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) at Rio deJaneiro in 1992, the UK has an international obligation to look after its FAnGR. Therehas been concern for many years over the loss of indigenous, locally-adapted breeds indeveloping countries. While this remains a major concern, the United Nation’s Food andAgriculture Organisation (FAO) is also concerned about the unprecedented threat toFAnGR in developed countries, as a result of the global spread of relatively fewspecialised breeds, and the growing economic pressures on primary producers3. TheFAO Global Strategy for the Management of Farm Animal Genetic Resources, which theUK is party to, is the international mechanism through which action recommended bythe CBD is taken. More recently the CBD, in their 7th Conference of the Parties inFebruary 2004, passed a decision on mainstreaming agricultural biodiversity into coreGovernment policy.

It is therefore entirely appropriate, and in line with international policy obligations, thatwe should incorporate into mainstream livestock policy those actions that properlymanage, conserve and make use of our farm animal genetic diversity in sustainablelivestock systems.

Box 2: The Convention on Biological Diversity

The Convention on Biological Diversity is the major international agreement onprotection and sustainable use of biodiversity and it covers all ecosystems, speciesand genetic resources – including Farm Animal Genetic Resources. The Conventionwas ratified by most of its signatories, which included the UK, and its provisions arelegally binding. Therefore, participants are obliged to implement its provisions,which have three main goals:

• to conserve biodiversity;

• to promote the sustainable use of biodiversity; and

• to promote the sharing of benefits arising from the use of geneticresources in a fair and equitable way.

A recent Decision (COP VII/III on Agricultural Biodiversity) signed up to by the UK:

“Invites the Parties and other Governments to consider and promote, as appropriateand subject to national legislation and international law, the mainstreaming ofagricultural biodiversity in their plans, programmes and strategies with the activeparticipation of local and indigenous communities and the inclusion in thecommunities’ plans, programmes and strategies on conservation, development anduse of agricultural biodiversity, and to recognise and support the efforts of local andindigenous communities in conserving agricultural biodiversity;…”

13


www.biodiv.org

http://www.fao.org/dad-is

www.biodiv.org/decisions/default.aspx?m=COP-07&id=7740&lg=0

2.1.3 Impact of national policies on the UK’s FAnGR

Until recently, farm animal genetic resources (FAnGR) per se have not featured stronglyin UK Government policy. Managing FAnGR was left in the capable hands of industryand non-governmental organisations. However a combination of the internationalobligations, as described above, and changes in the strategic direction of domesticpolicy affecting the livestock sector, has led to a growing realisation that a co-ordinatednational policy on FAnGR is needed across the UK.

All four UK Government Rural Affairs Departments have published strategic documentsdefining policy for sustainable farming and food production within a wider frameworkof economic, environmental and social sustainability. These policy documents are:

The Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food – Defra, England

A Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture: Next Steps – SEERAD, Scotland

Farming for the Future – Welsh Assembly Government, Wales

Strategic Plan 2006-2011 – DARDNI, Northern Ireland

These documents describe the policy framework through which Government will seekto work effectively alongside the farming industry, to facilitate and support its futuredevelopment – which lies principally in the hands of the industry itself. Whilst there isno specific policy relating to FAnGR or animal breeding in these documents, thesustainable use and conservation of FAnGR is critical to their success, because theyprovide the very first link in any sustainable livestock product chain. In this context,livestock products not only include meat, milk, eggs, wool, hides and skins and otheruseful by-products, but also the rural landscape, tourist attractions and environmentsthat enhance wild biodiversity.

The use of appropriate breeds and breeding strategies can also help to minimise theimpact of greenhouse gas emissions, ammonia, nitrates and phosphates on theenvironment by ensuring that essential nutrients such as carbon, nitrogen andphosphorus are converted as efficiently as biologically possible into useful livestockproducts, rather than being lost to the environment.

In each of the areas mentioned above there are opportunities for some of our FAnGR.However, Government actions or policies can have an unintended detrimental effect onFAnGR too. For instance, the culling policy employed during the 2001 Foot and MouthDisease epidemic resulted in dramatic reductions in the population size of a number ofrare and traditional breeds of livestock. Many elite herds and flocks of mainstreambreeds were lost during the crisis too. Similarly, the National Scrapie Plan (NSP), andNorthern Ireland Scrapie Plan (NISP), which is intended to accelerate breeding forscrapie resistance in the UK sheep flock – a highly desirable aim – is leading to rapid

14


http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/policy/sustain/pdf/sffs.pdf

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/94965/0022832.pdf

www.countryside.wales.gov.uk/fe/master.asp?n1=4&n2=52

www.dardni.gov.uk/dard-strategic-plan-2006-2011.pdf

changes in the genetic makeup of many breeds. Despite the laudable objectives of theNSP and NISP, there is a risk of unforeseen consequences in the long term. Hence, weapplaud the creation of a semen archive to provide a fallback position.

There is a growing need to identify areas of Government policy – including animalhealth and welfare, landscape management and biodiversity, sustainable food andfarming and rural development – that may have impacts on our FAnGR, to ensure thatpolicy is ‘joined up’, that the benefits for FAnGR are maximised and the risks minimised.The actions of non-governmental organisations have been very effective in breedconservation in the recent past. For instance, none of the breeds listed by the RareBreeds Survival Trust has become extinct in the UK over the past 30 years. However, thechallenge that faces both industry and Government is to avoid the unnecessarypermanent loss of genetic diversity within our farm animal breeds, so that we are betterprepared to meet the environmental, economic and social challenges to the future oflivestock production in the UK. This applies whether the breeds are commerciallymainstream or at risk of extinction.

2.2 Why we need a National Action PlanIn 2002 Defra, with contributions from SEERAD, DARDNI and the Welsh AssemblyGovernment, published the UK Country Report on Animal Genetic Resources. This wasthe United Kingdom’s official contribution to the FAO’s “First Report on the State of theWorld’s Animal Genetic Resources”, to be published in 2007 as part of FAO’s GlobalStrategy.

The UK Report describes the state of the UK’s livestock industry and the key role thatthe country’s rich diversity of livestock breeds and commercial strains play inmaintaining the economic and genetic sustainability of its farm animal productionsystems, as well as being part of the country’s rural culture. It also analyses thechanging demands on national livestock production and future breeding programmesdriven by the globalisation of livestock product marketing, and by evolving Governmentpolicies on the environment, animal welfare and food safety. The Report reviews whatneeds to be done to assist the industry to meet those demands by improving co-ordination among the relevant stakeholders, and by building capacity in the animalbreeding and conservation sectors. National priorities for action are given as well as anumber of recommendations relevant to both Government and the private sector onhow the conservation and utilisation of the country’s animal genetic resources can beimproved.

The Report identified some major gaps in our management of FAnGR in the new ruralcontext, and concluded with strong recommendations that:

(i) there should be a National Action Plan for Farm Animal Genetic Resourcesbased on the recommendations in the Report, and

15


(ii) a National Steering Committee on Farm Animal Genetic Resources should beconstituted to formulate the Plan and drive it forward.

Both of these recommendations were accepted and supported by the relevantGovernment Departments. The National Steering Committee on Farm Animal GeneticResources was established as an ad hoc advisory committee, initially for a two-yearperiod, meeting for the first time in January 2004. The membership of the committee isshown in Annex 1. The primary aim of the committee was to produce this NationalAction Plan; its full remit is shown in Annex 2.

We have a strong tradition of not only producing but also caring for our FAnGR in theUK – thanks largely to the activities of many individual breeders, charities and non-governmental organisations. However, the threat to our FAnGR is growing, for thereasons outlined above. The Plan is intended to build on our strong tradition in the UKof non-governmental commitment to protecting our FAnGR. But there are clearly areaswhere Government input and resources are needed, both to improve outcomes of itsown policies, and to help co-ordinate the activities of others. The National Action Planidentifies these, and will help Government, industry and other stakeholders worktogether in a co-ordinated way.

2.3 Structure of the PlanThe Plan is divided into three main sections, dealing respectively with:

• What, and where, are our Farm Animal Genetic Resources?

• How should we look after and use our FAnGR?

• What can Government do to help?

We identify a total of 38 Recommended Actions throughout the report, and these arealso listed in the Executive Summary. The first of these is given below. In framing therest of the Recommended Actions we have assumed that this first one will be accepted.

We have consulted widely with stakeholders in drawing up the National Action Plan,and believe that there is strong support for the Recommended Actions within it. Thereis also wide support for an ongoing forum to advise on, and help co-ordinate, activitiesrelating to FAnGR, as the NSC has done during its initial period of operation.

Recommended Action 1: The National Steering Committee should be constitutedas a UK standing committee, to provide a permanent forum for advisingGovernment and other stakeholders on issues relating to FAnGR, and to overseeimplementation of, and further develop, the National Action Plan.

16


3.1 IntroductionClearly, if we are going to protect our FAnGR, we first need to know what resources wehave, and where they are.

The CBD recognises the identification and monitoring of genetic resources as thefoundation for all management activities, from conservation to sustainable utilisation.The activity of identifying FAnGR includes developing an inventory and characterisingFAnGR. This will help to identify priorities and increase awareness of opportunities. Theoutcome answers the questions ‘What resources do we have?’, ‘What does eachresource have to offer?’ and ‘How is the population changing?’. To be most effective,the question ‘What does each resource have to offer?’ needs to address strategic andlong-term needs. Monitoring provides assurance on the management of FAnGR andidentifies the needs and opportunity for policy development and actions bystakeholders.

The CBD obliges governments to address these fundamental issues, and the actions willneed to be led by Government, although they can only be effectively achieved with thesupport and assistance of all stakeholders in FAnGR.

3.2 Identification of the UK’s Farm Animal GeneticResourcesFirst, we must answer the question ‘What is a genetic resource?’ before we can beginto compile an inventory. Genetic resources are widely defined as genetic material ofcurrent or potential use. In technical terms “genetic material” refers to any material ofplant, microbial or animal origin, including reproductive and vegetative propagatingmaterial, containing functional units of heredity. More simply, a ‘genetic resource’ canbe fully mature plants, animals and microbes or seeds, cuttings, frozen embryos, eggs,and semen. In this section, we look at how we can consider this term to usefully applyto the UK’s farmed livestock.

3.2.1 Describing Breeding Population structures

The UK has a rich reservoir of purebred farm animal breeds that are of internationalsignificance. However, defining a national genetic resource is unusually complicated inthe UK by the structures of the most important livestock sectors, in which many of theproductive livestock are crossbred, resulting from the systematic and recurrent matingof two, three or four breeds to capture hybrid vigour or to exploit complementarycharacteristics of several breeds. This often involves two generations of breeding toproduce these crosses, and involves specially selected lines within the breeds used forcrossing. The poultry and pig sectors are highly developed examples of suchcrossbreeding systems. In response to this situation we recommend that a ‘BreedingStructure Report’ is compiled for each sector which details the reliance of the sector on

17


3 What, and where, are our Farm Animal Genetic Resources?

crossbreds, the structure of the crossbreeding system, the pure breeds that are theprimary source of parents for such systems, and the stakeholders managing the system.Regular surveys of the sheep sector already exist, and we recommend that thisapproach be extended to all sectors.

Box 3: Changing breed popularity

The recent Defra-commissioned survey of the sheep breeding sector providesvaluable insight into the changing popularity of breeds and crosses. For example,the Lleyn breed of sheep was rare 40 years ago, but is estimated to number over230,000 ewes today. Its resurgence is probably due to its ‘easy care’ attributes, ofincreasing importance post CAP Reform, and because of its overall efficiency – itproduces a relatively high output of lambs, while having relatively low maintenancecosts due to intermediate ewe weight. Similarly, there is renewed interest amongsome sheep producers in the Wiltshire Horn breed, because of its characteristic ofshedding wool – a potentially useful easy-care attribute for some sheep producers.

These examples illustrate both the importance of having accurate information onpopulation sizes, and the commercial value of conserving FAnGR to help meetchanging market demands.

Recommended Action 2: Defra and the Devolved Administrations shouldcommission a series of Breeding Structure Reports for each UK livestock sector, andupdate these every six years.

18


Wiltshire Horn sheep areable to shed their ownfleeces (Courtesy of TheWiltshire Horn ShepSociety).

Lleyn Sheep with triplets(Courtesy of Coleg Flock

Institute of RuralSciences, University ofWales, Aberystwyth).

3.2.2 Creating a UK National Breed Inventory

To complement the Breeding Structure Reports, giving an overall picture of the variouslivestock species sectors, we need to maintain a UK web-based inventory of purebreeds, upgraded from the existing UK National Breed Database kept by Defra (SeeAppendix 3 of the 2002 UK Country Report on FAnGR). It will be important to co-ordinate the development of the Inventory in parallel with the regional European FarmAnimal Biodiversity Information System (EFAB-IS) which itself will have links to theglobal FAO Domestic Animal Diversity Information System (DAD-IS). In this way, it willbe possible to monitor not only national trends, but also European and global trends,in native and exotic breed populations.

Defra’s Livestock Data Division, Horse Passport Branch and the equivalent DevolvedAdministration Divisions should also be kept informed of progress on the developmentof the National Breed Inventory and appropriate working links should be set up so thatthe scope for interchange of information between the National Equine Database, theLivestock Register and the Inventory is optimised and duplication avoided.

3.2.3 Definition of a breed

One problem in compiling such an Inventory is that there is no scientifically robust oruniversally accepted definition of a breed. The FAO recognise the term breed as acultural one, and will simply recognise a breed if a member Government says that thebreed exists.

In Europe, zootechnical legislation provides a standard that can be applied to breedsocieties, pedigree certificates, herdbooks and genetic evaluation. The legislation aimsto promote free trade in pedigree breeding animals and their genetic material throughstandardisation, and makes a valiant attempt to harmonise the breeding practices of itsMember States. However, the legislation is not always sufficiently flexible, nor is ituniformly applied in each Member State. Because of the potential effect on FAnGR, theNSC should be consulted on any issues or policies developing from discussions inEurope on definitions of what constitutes a breed. Clearly, the NSC will need to revisethe inventory in the light of any adopted changes to existing Europe-wide policies orother developments, to ensure compliance and cohesion, and will need to determinewhich breeds qualify as a genetic resource.

Recommended Action 3: The existing UK National Breed Database shouldbe upgraded into a web-based UK National Breed Inventory using the EuropeanFarm Animal Biodiversity Information System (EFABIS), as appropriate, to ensurecompatibility with and links to European and UN Food and Agriculture Organisation(FAO) Domestic Animal Diversity Information System (DAD-IS) databases. Clear linkswith the Livestock Register (and the National Equine Database) in Defra andequivalent databases in the Devolved Administrations should be established.

19


www.defra.gov.uk/farm/policy/geneticresources/animalgenetics.pdf

www.europa.eu.int/comm/food/animal/zootechnics/legislation_en.htm

Broad attributes, which may be used to characterise breeds, should be included in theInventory. It is likely that NSC priorities will be determined, at least in part, by whetheror not the resource is native, since the UK Government has the greatest obligationtowards these breeds under the CBD. This will be determined by the period of time thebreed has been recognised within the UK and the distinctiveness of the gene pool. Wehave followed the FAO nomenclature in this report of categorising breeds as native orexotic. However, we understand native to include both indigenous breeds, and thosethat have been present in the UK for a very long time.

It is difficult to be precise in defining which breeds should be considered native.Similarly, defining feral is difficult, and this may be necessary as the application offuture regulations concerning welfare and management of FAnGR may depend onwhether or not a resource is feral. We show in Annex 3 our current working guidelineson these definitions, but propose that these are kept under review by the NSC, andthat ‘borderline’ cases are considered in more detail by the NSC on their merits.

3.2.4 Characterisation

Characterisation – identifying the major biological/agricultural characteristics of breedsand strains – is the key task to help us identify what each resource has to offer. Areview4 commissioned by Government, gives a comprehensive and relatively recentindication of the degree and nature of characterisation carried out for UK native breedsat risk. The review highlighted the need for better quality information, in particularfrom well-designed research. Much of the anecdotal information presented about hownative breeds at risk perform, in general or in specific environments, has yet to besufficiently verified. This lack of characterisation severely limits opportunities for breedsthat are currently rare to increase in numbers. The challenge will be to exploit

Recommended Action 4: The UK National Co-ordinator, with guidance from theNSC (with additional expertise as necessary), should populate and maintain the UKNational Breed Inventory, identifying which breeds should be classified asmainstream or at risk, native, exotic or feral etc. The use of the term breed withinthe inventory should be consistent with definitions of inter-governmental bodiessuch as the EU and FAO.

Further, the NSC should:

• provide guidance for UK Government on the appropriateness of anyproposed EU definition of a breed, and the implications such a definitionmay have for UK policy, industry activity and FAnGR management; and

• keep under review the scope of the inventory and its use of terms toensure it is relevant to the management of FAnGR.

20


opportunities to conduct such studies in a cost-effective way, since objectivecharacterisation experiments are expensive to run. Developing a more objectiveapproach to targeting characterisation studies is a subject that needs more research.

3.2.5 Molecular Characterisation

Molecular characterisation, leading to generalised measures of genetic similarity anddistance among breeds and strains, has been carried out for most species (pigs, sheep,cattle, and horses) including many native breeds. These characterisation studies are notexhaustive – inevitably many breeds of sheep and poultry have received little attention.There is benefit in commissioning a review of such studies in relation to UK FAnGR, toidentify gaps and prioritise breeds for inclusion in any future study. The outcomes ofstudies may have an influence on the priorities for conservation actions and may lead tonew insights into breed histories and relationships. Molecular characterisation shouldalso help to ensure more effective targeting of phenotypic characterisation studies.

3.3 MonitoringThe objective of monitoring is to answer questions such as ‘To what extent, and howquickly, are populations changing in size or structure?’ and ‘To what degree is thisbreed ‘at risk’?’.

Recommended Action 6: A short review of molecular characterisation studies onUK livestock should be commissioned, including their adequacy in relation toMolecular Domestic Animal Diversity (MoDAD) procedures and advising on prioritiesfor any future studies. Studies should be commissioned to address the prioritiesidentified.

Recommended Action 5: There is a need for greater, but cost-effective, scientificcharacterisation of those breeds to be incorporated into the UK National BreedInventory – e.g. through EU initiatives and partnership with conservationprogrammes, but ensuring sound comparisons of resources in the same environment –with priorities on:

• disease resistance;

• quality of meat and/or other products;

• behavioural or physiological differences leading to increased ‘fitness’ forspecific environments or management regimes e.g. conservation grazing.

More research is needed on effective targeting of breed characterisation studies.

21


3.3.1 Monitoring breeds

A monitoring process is required to provide the necessary information for assessing theextent and source of risk to our native breeds. Monitoring of population sizes andtrends (both numerical and geographical criteria) for each breed, including both thenational, bio-geographical (Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic) and global statusare an integral part of this procedure

There is also a need to ensure that monitoring of mainstream breeds is adequate toassess the loss of genetic variation within them and to assess the broad direction ofgenetic change in relation to sustainability. Whilst directions of change in commercialproductivity will be monitored closely by industry, areas of concern to Defra and theDevolved Administrations such as ‘fitness’ and environmental impact may remainunmonitored, or may require Government input to achieve adequate monitoring.

A Standardised Template should be used to collect all information to assess the riskposed to both breeds at risk and mainstream FAnGR so that these resources can bemore effectively monitored. This template should provide the basis for collection andstorage of data to be included in the National Breed Inventory. We show in Annex 4 aprovisional list of data that would be of value in monitoring FAnGR.

3.3.2 Information Portal

Defra is constructing a UK Information Portal for Genetic Resources for Food andAgriculture (GRFA), providing information on resources in the animal, plant andmicrobial kingdoms, similar to that found in the German and French GRFA portals.This is an opportunity to provide an improved evidence base for policymakers, andto publicise both resources and activities pertaining to FAnGR. The portal also hasconsiderable value in facilitating the monitoring of FAnGR and the NSC has animportant role in ensuring that the development of the portal fulfils the needs ofthe FAnGR stakeholders. In particular, the NSC should ensure that the updating anduploading systems for the inventory contained within the information portal meetstakeholder requirements.

Recommended Action 7: The NSC should oversee the development of a suitableStandardised Template to monitor breeds for incorporation into the National BreedInventory and ensure that information is collected to help assess the risk posed toour national FAnGR.

22


www.genres.de/genres-e.htm

www.brg.prd.fr/brg/ecrans/accueil_An.htm

3.3.3 Frequency of monitoring and review

Whilst the National Breed Inventory linked to the GRFA Portal should provideopportunities for regular updating, the information collated under the StandardisedTemplate should be examined routinely by the NSC to review trends and re-assesspriorities. This information should be sought by Defra from stakeholders, includingbreed societies, through regular surveys.

3.3.4 Breed societies

Breed societies will be one of the major sources of information used for monitoringaspects of the Standardised Template described in Recommended Action 7, and maybe the sole source of information for some aspects, e.g. society profiles, conservationactivities. There is a need to review the procedure for obtaining information from thebreed societies and the adequacy of the information obtained, and to seek theirco-operation in operating the procedure. This review should take account of thedevelopment of the GRFA information portal.

Recommended Action 10: The procedure for obtaining information from breedsocieties and breeding companies and the content of the information should bereviewed by the NSC, in the light of the needs of the Standardised Templaterecommended above (Recommended Action 7) and the opportunities offered by theGRFA Information Portal.

Recommended Action 9: The NSC should review and update ‘monitoring data’ inthe UK National Breed Inventory in a 3 yearly cycle with sequential reviews of: (i)sheep and goats; (ii) cattle, pigs, and horses; and (iii) poultry.

Recommended Action 8: The NSC should ensure that the GRFA Information Portalbeing developed by Defra fulfils the needs of FAnGR stakeholders by:

• linking the web-based UK National Breed Inventory (in Recommendation3) to the web portal;

• ensuring the uploading and updating procedures can facilitate monitoringof FAnGR;

• obtaining accurate and objective information on breeds, activities andissues in relation to FAnGR as described in the Standardised Template inRecommended Action 7.

23


The monitoring and analysis of data obtained will be greatly facilitated if societies havecost-effective means of maintaining herd-book information electronically, e.g. in theuploading of information into the National Breed Inventory via the GRFA portal.

3.3.5 Filling the gaps in quantifying available resources

Whilst the UK National Breed Inventory will be developed within Defra, building on thedatabase associated with the UK Country Report, more work is still required toformalise the means of extrapolating beyond herd/flock-book information, orquantifying resources in the absence of herd or flock books. The latter situation is therule in poultry breeds and also in some hill sheep breeds, such as the Scottish Blackface,and at least one breed of cattle. The annual census forms could provide some usefulinformation about breeds without herd books.

3.3.6 Monitoring geographical distribution

The Foot and Mouth Disease epidemic in 2001 highlighted the endangerment tobreeds, such as the Herdwick sheep breed, that are relatively numerous, but aregeographically localised. Whilst geographical distribution is identified within thetemplate referred to in Recommended Action 7, there is currently no standard measureof this. This needs to be developed for use in assessing priorities for conservationactions.

Recommended Action 12: Procedures for quantifying resources not includedwithin herd and flock books should be formalised by the NSC.

Recommended Action 11: Breed societies should be encouraged to make all herdand flock books electronic to facilitate the uploading of monitoring information, asdefined in the Standardised Template, to the National Breed Inventory via the GRFAInformation Portal.

24


3.3.7 Mainstream breed monitoring

There are a number of policy drivers for UK Government and Devolved Administrationsto collect and monitor population data on livestock, such as the need for recordingcensus data, managing traceability, monitoring animal health, measuring environmentalimpact, conserving genetic resources and so on. It is intended that the LivestockRegister project will consolidate many of the various national livestock databases intoone, or at least to ensure that they are linked and compatible. However, at present, theNational Equine Database is not within the scope of the Livestock Register so thisinformation source will need to be considered separately.

As the scope of the Livestock Register has been examined, Defra has recognised thepotential benefits of improving breed and species information but, so far, nomechanism has been identified to deliver this improvement. However, a vast amount ofimportant information is currently being, and will be, collected to populate the Registerand linked databases. This should be made available for analysis to facilitate themonitoring of all breeds. The NSC should have access to these data to ensure thesustainable management of the nation’s mainstream FAnGR

Recommended Action 14: Industry and Government stakeholders should worktogether:

• to improve the recording of livestock breed data before finalising therequirements of the Livestock Register, and

• to speed the development of routine linking (through common formatsfor animals and holdings) of key databases containing informationimportant for the sustainable management of the UK’s FAnGR.

Recommended Action 13: A project – to be steered by the NSC – should becommissioned, to build on and define:

• robust qualifications for a breeding nucleus essential to the survival of abreed, with or without cryopreserved genetic material as a backup, andparticularly when the breed is geographically concentrated;

• how best to quantify degree of concentration and thresholds forpreservation action;

• the feasibility and practicality of the necessary data collection, includingthe population size and location of holdings; and

• breeds at risk as a result of geographical concentration, using thepreferred measures defined above.

25


4.1 IntroductionThe previous section concentrated on how we establish what and where the nation’sFAnGR are and what their attributes are. In this section we consider two main issues:how we protect the FAnGR that we have identified and characterised, and how weencourage sustainable use of these FAnGR.

We believe that a strong demand for breeding stock, and their continued commercialuse, offers the best protection for FAnGR. So, in section 4.5 we consider what actionsmight be taken to identify and stimulate demand for more of our genetic resources.However, we recognise that for many breeds that are no longer in common use, thismarket demand may never return, or may not return soon enough to offer protection.Hence, in the first part of the section we consider the measures needed to protectFAnGR at risk in the event of a lack of market demand.

This Plan is concerned both with breeds at risk, and with mainstream breeds, for thereasons outlined earlier. However, a vital component of the sustainable use of ourFAnGR, whether mainstream or at risk, is the management of genetic variationwithin breeds.

4.2 How should we look after our FAnGR?The preservation of a wide spectrum of FAnGR is a crucial component of anyprogramme to maintain genetic diversity in our farmed livestock – not only to meet ourobligations under the CBD, but also to assist the development of sustainable systems oflivestock breeding and production in agriculture post CAP reform. Access to a widevariety of species and breeds of livestock is the starting point for effective matching ofFAnGR to the existing diverse range of semi-natural and cultivated environments foundin the UK today. Importantly, it also increases the chances of meeting novel challengesto livestock production, such as those expected as a result of climate change in thefuture, and for reducing environmental impact.

The preservation of mainstream breeds is likely to be ensured by their widespread use,but changes in their status and employment should still be monitored. Less obviousrisks to these mainstream breeds include the potential loss of genetic variation in somecases, caused by the global use of relatively few sires, and the potential loss offunctional fitness, as a result of too much emphasis on production-related traits inselection. This may directly or indirectly lead to welfare problems such as leg weaknessin broilers, or to impairment of other characteristics, such as fertility in dairy cattle.

The qualities possessed by minority breeds and breeds at risk have not provided securityfor their survival historically, as market demands have favoured higher-yielding breeds.There is a justification for preserving them in case they possess qualities, such asrobustness, ’easy care’ attributes, disease resistance, high fertility etc. that are valuedmore highly in future. There is a counter argument that such attributes could be

26


4 How should we look after and use our FAnGR?

improved more rapidly by selection within larger, mainstream breeds. However, the bestoption will depend on the relative merits of the ‘candidate’ rare and mainstream breedsin all traits of interest, the amount of genetic variation in the desired trait and the modeof inheritance e.g. whether single or many genes are involved. Our view is that atargeted preservation and characterisation programme for breeds at risk is worthwhile.

The development of policies and actions for preservation depend on access to accurateand current information on the FAnGR of the UK. The data generated by theidentification and monitoring of FAnGR (see Section 3) will provide the informationnecessary to define and prioritise actions for conservation as part of an ongoingprocess.

4.3 Which FAnGR should we preserve?A number of national non-Governmental organisations have been involved actively forseveral decades in conserving our national FAnGR. Attention has often focussed onwhich FAnGR to preserve when there has been a particular threat as a result of adisease outbreak, such as Foot and Mouth Disease. Rising threats from diseases suchas TB and avian influenza highlight the importance of greater co-operation andco-ordination at national level to make the best use of conservation action.

The first step in this process is to standardise national thresholds so that conservationaction can be prioritised. There are a number of thresholds that should be considered:

4.3.1 Is the breed native or exotic?

In the UK Country Report breeds of livestock were classified according to whether theywere native or exotic (i.e. not native to the UK) (see UK Country Report on FAnGRAppendix 3). More than 220 breeds of large livestock are listed of which 55% arenative, but this varies between species (sheep – 70%; pigs – 67%; cattle – 50%;equines – 39%; and goats – 25%). There are also more than 230 breeds of poultry(which includes turkeys, true bantams, geese and duck), but less than 15% are native.Support for all listed breeds would create enormous financial demands, and indicatesthe need for prioritisation. Each country is particularly responsible under the CBD forthe genetic resources in its native breeds, so the first threshold is whether or not thebreed is classified as native in the National Breed Inventory (see Recommended Action5).

However, there are strong arguments for preserving exotic FAnGR either when:

• the UK population makes up a substantial part of the global population; or

• the breed concerned makes an important economic contribution to UKagriculture, and has been selected to be significantly different from thepopulation in the country of origin.

27



More work is needed to identify exotic FAnGR that fall into these categories. Breeds inthe latter category are likely to have the financial resources to support any conservationaction needed, but may welcome advice on the conservation actions that could betaken.

4.3.2 Is the breed mainstream or at risk?

Breeds are categorised in the UK Country Report as ‘mainstream breeds’ or ‘breeds atrisk’. Both contribute to FAnGR and need to be accommodated within the NationalAction Plan, but breeds at risk should have priority for conservation.

Breeds may be considered to be at risk because they are numerically scarce (“rare”),because of low genetic variability, because of a narrow geographical concentration (e.g.many of the ‘heritage’ sheep breeds listed by The Sheep Trust; Chillingham cattle) orbecause of adaptation to a very specific environment.

Thresholds for numerical scarcity and consequent priority for conservation action forrare breeds usually have been based in the UK on the RBST Endangerment List, whichis itself based on FAO and other published guidelines. This list was further developed inthe UK Country Report on FAnGR 2002. The list presented in the UK Country Reportwill be the foundation for future discussions by NSC on priorities for conservationaction. The list will be reviewed regularly to ensure that it is relevant to stakeholderneeds and priorities. It is important to recognise however that the criteria andthresholds for breeds at risk through geographical concentration and/or localadaptation are ill defined, as are the measures for genetic or phenotypicdistinctiveness. These factors need to be addressed in order to prioritise breeds,which are not necessarily numerically scarce, for conservation action. The extent towhich breeds are introducing breeding stock of other breeds or strains is anothercriterion to be considered, over and above numerical when prioritising breeds forconservation action

Recommended Action 16: Defra and the Devolved Administrations shouldcommission a cost-benefit analysis of FAnGR to the rural economy. The study shouldbe steered by NSC, link to that in Recommended Action 19, and include the roles ofFAnGR of all farmed species in agribusiness, leisure and tourism. The results shouldbe used as a guide to prioritisation for conservation action.

Recommended Action 15: The prioritisation of native breeds for conservationshould continue as at present, but exotic breeds in the UK which are extinct in theircountry of origin and severely endangered globally, or which make an importanteconomic contribution to UK agriculture, may also need conservation action. Morework is needed to identify exotic FAnGR that fall into these categories.

28


www.thesheeptrust.org

http://www.rbst.org.uk/

In mainstream breeds there are three main cases which may require conservationaction, or corrective action, to preserve the integrity of the genetic resource.

(i) Loss of valuable herds/flocks

The first is illustrated by the recent Foot and Mouth Disease epidemic, during which manyvaluable mainstream breeding herds and flocks were lost. Pig, poultry and dairy breedingcompanies usually have biosecurity policies that include contingencies for recovery fromlosses such as these. However, it would be useful for mainstream breeds outwith thebreeding company sector (e.g. many beef and sheep breeds) to consider similarmeasures to protect their genetic resources in the event of a future disease epidemic,or other natural disaster.

(ii) Side effects of breeding policy

The second case is where the consequences of the current or past breeding policy mayrequire corrective or conservation action. There is now substantial evidence thatselection narrowly focused on production traits often leads to unfavourable correlatedresponses in health, welfare or fitness-related traits. A review in 1998 reported over100 examples of unfavourable correlated responses, mainly in poultry, pigs and dairycattle5. Unfavourable responses are particularly common in reproductive performance,metabolic disease and functional fitness (e.g. an increase in leg weakness/gait disordersin broiler chickens associated with selection for rapid growth; decreasing fertility indairy cattle selected for high milk yield). As well as posing an animal welfare andeconomic risk, these unfavourable responses also pose a threat to the long-termviability of the populations concerned, and hence to our FAnGR. It is important to notethat reduced welfare is not a necessary consequence of selective breeding per se –rather these responses tend to arise from a narrowly-focused breeding goal. Also, manyof the unfavourable consequences of selection identified have been, or are now being,addressed by breeders and breeding companies modifying their breeding programmes.This area is one of mutual interest to the NSC and the Farm Animal Welfare Council(FAWC), and interaction between them on any future advice would be useful.

(iii) Loss of genetic variation

The third case where action may be needed in mainstream breeds (and almost certainlyin all rare breeds) is in managing genetic variation. The more sustainable use of geneticvariation offers opportunities to enhance long term responses to selection in mainstreambreeds (and is critical to the survival of numerically-small breeds). It has become apparentover the last couple of decades that techniques which can increase the accuracy and/orintensity of selection, such as the use of ‘best linear unbiased prediction’ (BLUP) for

Recommended Action 17: The NSC should establish and keep under review thethresholds and priority levels for conservation action of breeds using scientificallyrobust criteria, further developing these as necessary. Thresholds for geographicalconcentration, local adaptation and breed distinctiveness, including use of otherbreeds or strains, need to be more clearly defined.

29


genetic evaluation, artificial insemination and embryo transfer, and genetic markers,potentially accelerate inbreeding and loss of genetic variation. During the last few yearsthere have been important developments for simultaneously managing rates of geneticgain and inbreeding, which should enhance responses to selection in mainstream breeds,and help manage conservation of rare breeds6,7.

Box 4: Changes in the genetic makeup of the UK dairy herd

Over the last half a century there have been major changes in the genetic makeupof the UK dairy herd. Around fifty years ago the native Shorthorn, Ayrshire andChannel Island breeds were the most common. Over the following few decades thepopulations of these breeds declined in favour of the Friesian breed, a breed ofDutch origin, which was the most numerous dairy breed 25 years ago.

Today this breed itself has been largely replaced by the Holstein. The Holstein sharesits Dutch ancestry with the British Friesian, but underwent many generations ofselection for milk production in North America, before being exported to becomethe predominant breed in most temperate dairying countries today. The importationof North American Holsteins to the UK resulted in a substantial increase in milk yieldand associated economic returns compared to that of other breeds.

Despite being the predominant temperate dairy breed, with hundreds of millions ofcows worldwide, most Holstein cows around the world have many ancestors incommon only a few generations back, and the extent of inbreeding is increasingquite rapidly in many countries. This illustrates the need for careful stewardship ofthese genetic resources, despite the very large population size.

30


The Holstein is thepredominant breed ofcattle in temperatedairying countriestoday (Courtesy ofHolstein UK).

4.4 What are the conservation options?Conservation may take place both in situ and ex situ.

• In situ conservation in the farm animal sector generally involves maintainingbreeds at risk on commercial farms or smallholdings and is the preferred optionin the Convention on Biological Diversity. This approach has several advantages:

(i) the animals can still be seen and enjoyed,

(ii) the breed can continue to be characterised, and

(iii) the breeds have the opportunity to ‘evolve’ e.g. to develop resistanceto new disease challenges, or changes in husbandry. However, in situconservation exposes breeds to possible undesirable genetic changes(e.g loss of valuable attributes through selection or genetic drift). In situpopulations are also at risk of disease epidemics or other naturaldisasters. Also, without financial support, commercial pressures thatmade rare breeds rare in the first place will continue to encouragesubstitution by other breeds.

• Ex situ conservation involves collections of animals in museums or farmparks, or the creation of banks of genetic material (e.g. frozen semen, frozenembryos or DNA). Museums or farm-parks share many of the advantagesand disadvantages of commercial farms, though they may allow more controlover breeding decisions. Cryogenic stores offer protection from diseaseepidemics affecting live animals, though the stores themselves may be at riskfrom these or other disasters. The cost of ex situ conservation is usually amajor obstacle to its wider use. Therefore, a combination of in situ and exsitu conservation is likely to be the most effective route for conservation8.

Characterisation (e.g. morphological, molecular, performance) of both in situ and exsitu material is essential if the conservation programmes are to be meaningful for futureuse. In particular, uncharacterised cryogenic material is of limited value.

There is a need for a nationally co-ordinated Conservation Strategy whereby breedswhich are considered a priority for action, according to the national thresholds agreedin Recommended Actions 16 to 18 above are identified and given priority in practicalnational or European-level in situ and ex situ conservation activities. This action shouldbe based on the FAO guidelines on management of populations at risk, furtherdeveloping these where necessary7, 9, 10.

Recommended Action 18: We recommend that the NSC should advise onstrategies for genetic conservation actions as part of risk management inmainstream breeds, and highlight corrective actions that may be needed inmainstream breeds or strains where selection strategies appear to be producingunfavourable consequences for health, welfare or ‘fitness’ of animals.

31


4.5 Identifying sustainable uses and stimulating demandfor our FAnGR

4.5.1 Changing Government policies on food and farming

Government policies on food and farming, across the UK, are changing rapidly (seeSection 5 for more details). Modification of the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) isa key driver. Common themes in policies in England, Scotland, Wales and NorthernIreland are:

• Encouraging livestock producers to operate more effectively in anincreasingly competitive food chain. An important part of this is theproduction of high quality, consistent produce that the market wants.

• Encouraging more livestock production systems that deliverenvironmental benefits, or other ‘public goods’, including access.There is wide recognition of the inextricable link between agriculture and theenvironment. Livestock farmers are responsible for the management of muchof the UK’s landscape and biodiversity and have the potential to make asignificant contribution to tackling water and air pollution and climate change.

These developments may lead to both threats and opportunities for FAnGR. On the onehand, a focus on global competitiveness and costs of production may well acceleratethe trend towards the expansion of a few, very specialised breeds, and threaten someFAnGR. On the other hand, an emphasis on quality, region of origin, unique attributes,diversification and environmental benefits may create new opportunities for otherFAnGR.

Encouragingly, there appears to be a growing recognition of the importance of FAnGRin Government policy (see Section 5). The developing European Agricultural Fund forRural Development Regulation (EAFRD), due in 2007 to replace the existing RuralDevelopment Regulation, provides an ideal opportunity to ensure appropriate measuresfor the support of FAnGR, particularly when the new Regulation is transferred intocountry-specific national development plans. The status of owners of limited acreagewho cannot benefit from Agri-Environment Schemes but who, nevertheless, keepvaluable groups of FAnGR, especially rare breeds needs to be considered. In this context

Recommended Action 19: A project – to be steered by NSC – should becommissioned to develop a co-ordinated in situ and ex situ National FAnGRConservation Strategy for breeds at risk, and mainstream breeds that qualify forpriority action, taking into account the conservation work already being carried outby NGOs and breed societies. The project should include an evaluation of the costsand benefits of alternative approaches, and link with Recommended Action 16.

32


the implementation into national plans of “stand alone” genetic resource measures,independent of environmental benefits (possible under Axis II, Article 39 (paragraph 5)in the EAFRD Regulation as described in Recommended Action 29) is very important.

The importance of FAnGR is also increasingly recognised in research planning. Forinstance, the first report of the Sustainable Farming and Food Research Priorities Group(RPG) recognises that characterisation and development of FAnGR has something tooffer in a number of policy areas such as whole farm nutrient balancing andenvironmental protection.

4.5.2 Impact of changes in farming systems on the nation’s FAnGR

Partly stimulated by the policy changes outlined above, there is a trend for UK livestockfarming to gravitate towards one of three types of system:

• High input systems with a focus on technical efficiency. Livestocksectors that have historically had little or no subsidy support tend to fall intothis category already. With the removal of subsidies linked to production,more enterprises in the previously subsidised sectors are expected to move inthis direction. Management decisions will be based strongly on the directimpact on profitability. Enterprises will have to be managed to meet theminimum standards of environmental care and animal welfare required inlaw or, if this is higher, by customers (in most cases the major supermarketchains). These systems are likely to depend largely on today’s mainstreambreeds. The main FAnGR concerns here are likely to be sustainable use ofgenetic variation within these mainstream breeds, matching appropriategenotypes to these systems, and potential concerns over loss of functionalfitness in the long term, because of short term focus on production.

• Low and medium input systems, often maximising use of home-grown feeds, including grazing. Many more of these enterprises are likelyto be able to benefit from schemes to deliver public goods, such asenhanced environmental benefits. FAnGR concerns will include thosementioned above. However, intuitively, there ought to be opportunities forFAnGR currently outside mainstream production to find a role, for example inorganic systems, especially if the use of traditional breeds is supported directly.

Recommended Action 20: Defra and the Devolved Administrations should identifyopportunities within existing and developing national and EU legislation, such as theEuropean Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), to encourage the use ofFAnGR that are fit for purpose in delivering complementary policy objectives. “Standalone” genetic resource measures to support owners of at-risk FAnGR who do notqualify for any other complementary scheme should also be considered (SeeRecommended Action 29).

33


• Systems producing niche products for (usually) small, specialisedmarkets. These include high value meat, dairy, hide and skin and otherlivestock products for specialist independent retail outlets, farmers markets,and other direct marketing initiatives. Consumers are likely to expect especiallyhigh environmental and animal care in these systems. Again, these systemsought to be particularly attractive to those interested in locally-adapted andrare native breeds with a strong regional image. The lower volumes of productrequired also make these systems attractive to rare breeds, as their raritysometimes precludes contracts with major retailers. Finding the appropriateFAnGR for a given system will be a major challenge here. Bettercharacterisation of FAnGR would help identify new market opportunities.

A key challenge for those concerned about sustainable use of our FAnGR, will be to encouragethe flow to decision makers of accurate, appropriate information on our FAnGR, and itssuitability for particular livestock systems. Many of the actions identified so far, and some tofollow (see Recommended Actions 28 and 29 in particular), should help in this regard.

4.6 Actions to encourage sustainable use of our FAnGRGiven the Government policy and industry context outlined above, we see four main areasin which this National Action Plan can help to encourage sustainable use of our FAnGR:

• Communication of information on FAnGR

• Highlighting and demonstrating best practice

• Training and capacity building

• Research and development

We expand below on the actions needed in each of these areas, and in a final section discussresource needs. Activities in each of the areas mentioned depend heavily on, or interact with,other Recommended Actions on identifying, monitoring and preserving FAnGR.

4.6.1 Communication of information on FAnGR

Effective collation and communication of information on our FAnGR is central toencouraging the use of the most appropriate FAnGR. Much of the information needed(if it exists already) is being collected for identification, monitoring or preservingpurposes. However, it is important that we engage with those taking decisions on whatFAnGR to use in commercial systems, to ensure that the right sort of information isavailable in the right way.

The Grazing Animals Project has had equivalent aims for several years, in disseminatinginformation on the suitability of breeds for grazing conservation projects (see Box 5).

34


Box 5: The Grazing Animals Project (GAP) and PONT

GAP was formed in 1997 to help develop conservation grazing throughout the UK.The project was founded through the merger of two initiatives: The Forum for theApplication of Conservation Techniques’ (FACT) and ‘The Use of Rare Breeds inConservation’ forum at Liverpool John Moores University.

Its purpose is to help grazing managers and advisors to deliver biodiversity targetsthrough integrated and sustainable land management systems. Many conservationsites have been traditionally managed by grazing for centuries but some have beenreported to be less suited to imported breeds. Re-establishing grazing on such sitesusing native breeds has the potential to deliver the combined benefit ofencouraging desirable plant communities and conserving our native geneticresources through utilisation.

GAP and its Welsh counterpart PONT have two main activities:

• Providing publications to help managers choose stock, deliver high animalwelfare standards and develop novel and improved marketing approachesfor produce derived from conservation grazing systems

• Organising networking and servicing events to promote the use ofgrazing animals in conservation areas

A wide range of organisations support the activities of GAP and PONT, includingconservation agencies, NGOs, agricultural organisations, breed societies and landowning or managing organisations such as the National Trust and National Parks.

35


Exmoor Ponies have beengrazing on what are nowconservation sites for centuries(Courtesy of Margaret Paxton)

Traditional breeds such asHighland cattle can play a key

role in land management (Courtesy of Robert Goodison)

http://www.fact-group.org/

Key partners that should be invited to take part in formulating and acting on the planinclude:

• Breed societies and associated umbrella organisations (e.g. NBA, NSA, BPA,NPA, RABDF)

• Breeding companies

• Livestock levy boards and associated devolved organisations (MLC, MDC,Eblex, QMS, HCC)

• Recording companies

• Agri-environmental organisations (e.g. LEAF, FWAG, Soil Association, GrazingAnimals Project etc).

• Advisory and Consultancy organisations, including Agri-Food PartnershipWales

• Marketing and branding experts

• Food Chain Centre

• Red Meat Industry Forum

• Dairy Chain Forum

• Retailers (including the Institute of Grocery Distribution)

• Agricultural societies and international export traders

• Relevant Government agencies.

In constructing and implementing the Communication Plan the NSC should:

• Draw up a list of existing traditional breed marketing schemes (based onRBST and other NGO expertise) and identify relevant contacts.

• Approach organisations with an interest in developing livestock productmarketing initiatives to publicise the FAnGR message and encourage theirgreater use.

Recommended Action 21: The NSC, with other partners and externalcommunications expertise, should develop a Communication Plan to:

• create wide awareness of the information resources available on FAnGR;and

• develop future FAnGR information provision in a way that is most helpfulto decision-makers.

36


• Engage with all organisations and breeding companies that have a role indeveloping breeding objectives and indices or run genetic improvementprogrammes to increase awareness of FAnGR policy and utilisation objectives

4.6.2 Highlighting and demonstrating best practice

The NSC has neither the remit nor the expertise to become directly involved instrategies for marketing or branding of FAnGR. However, we recognise that this offersimportant opportunities for some FAnGR, especially rare and traditional breeds thathave a strong regional or quality image. Two important roles for the NSC are to ensurethat appropriate factual information is available to promote responsible marketing (asoutlined above), and that FAnGR stakeholders are aware of what can be done, byhighlighting success stories.

The promotion of quality brands for local or regional products can also be facilitated byGovernment through supporting applications to the EU Commission for ProtectedGeographical Indication (PGI) or Protected Designation of Origin (PDO). A Certificate ofSpecific Character (CSC) – otherwise known as Traditional Speciality Guaranteed (TSG)status – for products derived from native breeds is particularly relevant under PGI. TheRegional Development Agencies may also have a role to play in encouraging thegrowth of regional branding initiatives related to their local FAnGR.

Recommended Action 22: The NSC should identify and publicise ‘success stories’where commercial activities (e.g. speciality food marketing) or environmentalmanagement programmes have been developed around the use of non-mainstreamFAnGR.

37


Box 6: Promotion of native breeds by the National Trust in England andWales, by Natural England and others.

In England and Wales, the National Trust uses rare native breeds on many of itshistoric properties. For example, Wimpole Home Farm near Cambridge, has largebreeding units of several native breeds at risk (cattle, sheep, pigs and poultry) and isan Approved Conservation Centre for the RBST. Also, Dinefwr Castle in South Waleshas a herd of White Park cattle first mentioned on that site in 856AD.

The National Trust also encourages the use of native breeds by its tenant farmers.For example, in Cumbria, National Trust tenants are encouraged to use theHerdwick sheep breed, and the Trust supports its tenants by organising promotionaland marketing material and events.

Natural England also promotes the use of native breeds in grazing conservationprojects (e.g. the Limestone Country Project). This assists directly in conservationof these breeds, and provides an important opportunity to publicise FAnGRconservation issues.

The Wiltshire Interactive Grazing Initiative (WIGI), a partnership project betweenEnglish Nature, RSPB and Wiltshire Wildlife, is using White Park cattle forconservation grazing across a range of habitats, for example in the woodlandglading of Savernake Forest, upland grazing sites of special scientific interest (SSSIs)on Salisbury Plain, and on the wetlands of the Somerset Levels.

38


Blue Grey crossbredcattle are capable ofsurviving in the harshclimate and roughgrasslands of thelimestone country(Courtesy of RobertGoodison).

White Park are oneof the UK’s oldest

and most geneticallydistinct cattle breeds

(Courtesy ofLawrence Alderson).

www.limestone-country.org.uk

www.rspb.org.uk/england/southwest/conservation/wigi.asp

Box 8: The British Pig Association’s Pedigree Pork initiative

The British Pig Association is the official breed society of, and maintains the herdbooks for, the Berkshire, British Landrace, British Saddleback, Duroc, GloucestershireOld Spot, Hampshire, Large Black, Large White, Middle White, Oxford Sandy andBlack, Pietrain and Tamworth breeds.

The BPA’s Pedigree Pork Initiative promotes the sale of pig products from small herdsof pedigree pigs, produced by local farmers. Pedigree Pork is available from selectedlocal butchers, farmers markets, farm shops and by mail order.

Box 7: The RBST Traditional Breeds Meat Marketing Company Ltd

The Traditional Breeds Meat Marketing Scheme was started by the RBST in 1994 asa national project to assist the conservation of endangered native FAnGR. A mainobjective is to secure outlets for meat of high quality to make minority breedsfinancially viable. In 2003 the scheme was put in the hands of the Traditional BreedsMeat Marketing Company Ltd. The scheme involves local production, processingand marketing, through a network of producers, finishers, abattoirs and butchers.

39


Traditional Breeds’ meatproducts being marketed

locally (Courtesy ofRichard Lutwyche)

The Large White has beenone of the UK’s mostsuccessfully exported breedssince the 1880s (Courtesy ofthe British Pig Association).

TheGloucestershireOld Spot hasbeen one of thesuccesses of theTraditionalBreeds MeatMarketingCo Ltd(Courtesy ofRichardLutwyche)

http://www.rbst.org.uk/rare-breeds-meat/main.php

www.britishpigs.org.uk/pork.htm

Similarly, best practice with respect to the protection of breeds at risk and sustainablemanagement of FAnGR10 as a whole should be publicised e.g. see Box 9.

Box 9: Breeding companies contributing to the protection of FAnGR

Several international breeding companies hold populations of rare or traditionalbreeds and strains, as an insurance policy against changing market demand, and tohelp protect important FAnGR.

For example PIC International, the world’s largest pig breeding company maintainsmore than 15 populations internationally as part of its genetic programme. Thisincludes traditional breeds such as the Berkshire (from the UK) and the Meishan(from China).

Aviagen, the multinational poultry breeding company, maintains two distinct sets ofpure lines that are not being subjected to genetic selection for production traits.The first of these groups was established in 1972 (approximately 40 generationsago) and the latter group in 1996 (approximately 10 generations ago). Aviagen alsomaintains populations of rare turkey lines with unique characteristics such as coloursexing ability.

As well as protecting rare breeds and strains, breeding companies often restrictrates of inbreeding in selected lines to protect genetic variability within these.

40


Breeding companies havea pivotal role to play inthe protection of FAnGR(Courtesy of Aviagen).

4.6.3 Training and capacity building

The UK Country Report identified a strong need for training and capacity building inthe area of FAnGR in the UK. The creation of the National Breed Inventory and theGRFA Information Portal will themselves provide useful training material. Likewise, theDVD produced to accompany this Plan should be of wider value in training. Otheractions that we consider necessary include:

Defra and the Devolved Administrations may have a useful role to play, in collaborationwith the NSC, in sponsoring training on conservation genetics and programmes foraction for FAnGR stakeholders at appropriate fora.

Other training actions should include the preparation of appropriate teaching supportmaterial for use in basic agriculture or countryside management courses. Also, otherinitiatives, such as The Science, Engineering, Technology and Mathematics Network(SETNET), could be used to reach school children, again through the production andavailability of support material.

4.6.4 Research and Development

The NSC should have a continuing role in helping to identify and prioritise research anddevelopment needs to support the protection and sustainable use of FAnGR. Severalresearch and development needs have been identified in this Plan already (seeRecommended Actions 5, 6, 13, 16, 31).

Briefly, these include R&D to:

• Review past molecular characterisation studies and identify future priorities.

• Provide more objective breed characterisation, and develop methods formore effective targeting of characterisation studies.

Recommended Action 24: The NSC should work with industry stakeholders toidentify a programme of relevant training courses relating to FAnGR, to identifypossible funding opportunities to develop such courses, and to identify appropriategroups to deliver them.

Recommended Action 23: The NSC should seek resources to develop andrepackage material on the GRFA Information Portal to facilitate its use in schools,colleges and universities, as part of taught courses, or via distance learning. Thematerial should be updated regularly. The availability of this material should then bepublicised widely.

41


http://www.setnet.org.uk/

• Produce robust guidelines on breeding nucleus flock/herd sizes to ensure thesurvival of a breed

• Develop methods to quantify the degree of geographical concentration ofbreeds, and identify breeds at risk as a result of geographical concentration.

• Investigate the costs and benefits of FAnGR to the rural economy

• Investigate lifecycle nutrient efficiency of different breeds, and developingstrategies to include this in within-breed selection

• Develop a co-ordinated in situ and ex situ National FAnGR conservationstrategy, including an evaluation of the costs and benefits of alternativeapproaches.

R&D is also needed to:

• Identify potential new opportunities for FAnGR, e.g. by identifyingbreeds/breed characteristics of value for different types of conservationgrazing.

• Identify new opportunities for development of mainstream breeds indirections that support Government policy, such as reducing theenvironmental impact of livestock production, or helping to deliver animalhealth and welfare benefits.

• Develop user-friendly tools to assist in maintaining the ‘genetic health’ ofmainstream FAnGR or FAnGR ‘at risk’.

Where there is clear public interest in, or policy relevance of, a particular FAnGRresearch topic, then these should be of interest to the NSC’s sponsoring GovernmentDepartments.

Where the likely benefits are entirely or partly to industry, then industry funding or co-funding (e.g. through existing schemes such as LINK) would be appropriate.

The NSC should also assist in ensuring effective dissemination of results to relevantstakeholders. Traditional dissemination routes have an important role to play (breedsocieties, levy boards, RBST, The Sheep Trust etc). Demonstration farms, perhaps linkingwith LEAF/FWAG and others, land-based colleges with farming enterprises, NaturalEngland, Farming Connect in Wales and other devolved bodies will all have a role toplay in encouraging the uptake of R&D which demonstrates the value of the strategicuse of particular breeds at risk in farming or environmental management systems.

Recommended Action 25: The NSC should help to identify research anddevelopment needs and priorities to support the protection and sustainable use ofFAnGR, help to identify relevant funding routes, and to disseminate R&D results

42


4.6.5 Resource needs

The importance and relevance of the conservation of FAnGR in the UK has becomeincreasingly understood recently. The resources necessary to carry out conservationactions are varied, and require the concerted input of the industry and Government.They include financial, human, genetic (animals) and infrastructure resources.

Potential sources of funding are through existing EU and Government programmes,NGOs, livestock industry (e.g. levy boards), and individuals. Human and infrastructureresources should be sought mainly from NGOs, while the genetic resources themselvescould be provided by individuals (mainly farmers) or private companies. In regard to theallocation of resources the NSC should seek to influence the priorities of levy bodiesby demonstrating the role and value of FAnGR, and establishing the principle ofprovision of resources for FAnGR activity as a foundational building block for asustainable livestock industry. Stakeholders should be encouraged to seek EU fundingfor collaborative projects involving European partners.

Recommended Action 26: The National Action Plan should act as the linkingframework on which to identify and collate resource sharing from a wide range ofstakeholders, some of whom may have conflicting priorities.

43


5.1 General policy Much of Government agricultural policy is concerned with regulation of the livestocksector and this naturally has an impact on the economic viability of livestock productionand breeding. The vast majority of such legislation is developed under the EU CommonAgricultural Policy and adopted in the UK by Defra and the Devolved Administrations,covering food quality and safety, rural development, environmental protection,biodiversity and animal health and welfare. There are over eighty current EURegulations that affect livestock production and breeding.

Very little legislation covers animal breeding and FAnGR directly. However, there aresome key regulations involving FAnGR and the number is growing as Genetic Resourcepolicy becomes more integrated into wider policy areas affecting livestock, both withinthe EU and nationally. Specific legislative areas will be dealt with later.

The following sections look at specific areas of Government policy affecting livestockproduction and breeding and highlight areas where action is needed to protect geneticdiversity in the UK’s farm animal breeds and manage their conservation and use. The policy areas covered are those identified in the template in Appendix 7 of the UK Country Report on Farm Animal Genetic Resources 2002.

5.2 Food production and security policy5.2.1 Quantity and quality of production affecting genetic resources

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), originally introduced in 1962, was driven by astrategic need for food security in Europe, which led to a deliberate increase indomestic food production and reduced dependence on imports. Throughout the lasthalf-century, production-related subsidies have remained a central feature of UK foodand farming policy. However, the 2003 CAP reform agreement heralded the decouplingof subsidy from production, notably for the beef and sheep sectors, removal of themarket-distorting effects of subsidy regimes and encouragement of greaterenvironmental responsibility.

The implementation of CAP reform is central to farming and food strategies in England,Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. These reforms will arguably lead to the mostsignificant changes in the livestock industry in decades, including a much greaterincentive to produce what the market requires, rather than farming for headagepayments. Animal breeders will need to focus on new objectives to reduce costs ofproduction, including environmental ones, meet cross compliance requirements andproduce specific products for specified markets. Producers will face stiffer competitionfrom imports produced at lower cost and will need to define unique selling points fortheir products if their businesses are to survive. Farmers may look to quality/specialistmarkets that attract a premium as well as to improving performance in their animals toensure economic viability and reduce output of environmental pollutants.

44


5 What can Government do to help?


FAnGR have an important role to play in providing the genetic basis for new or evolvingproduction systems and markets, and therefore the sustainability of UK livestockproduction. As more is understood about the genetic control of quality traits in farmedspecies, such as carcass and meat eating quality and fatty acid profiles, there is a needto characterise UK breeds for these attributes, and to use modern selection techniquesto enhance performance accordingly.

The availability of cheap, high-throughput genotyping and the growing amount ofinformation on the location of genes affecting traits of economic importance shouldmake it possible for breeders to make an even greater impact in future, especially intraits that have been neglected in the past because of the difficulty of measurement.These include meat quality, some reproductive traits and disease resistance. This willconsiderably raise the profile of host genetics in the management and monitoring ofrisks for many diseases, especially zoonotic diseases (those of risk to humans), diseasesof economic importance to farmers, or those requiring the use of treatments that mayrisk human health (e.g. an increasing risk of antibiotic resistance) or pose risks to theenvironment.

Government and their devolved bodies oversee the surveillance of disease risks and theroutine sampling of animals in a range of disease control measures. By (i) integratinggenetic information into relevant databases and (ii) allowing the re-use of surveillancesamples (e.g. for access to DNA) for defined and approved science projects will speedthe achievement of both Government and farmers’ objectives in this area, reduce thecosts of achieving them, and improve the health and welfare of livestock.

In view of the need for a genetically diverse pool of breeding stock from which to selecta widening array of desirable traits, it is surprising that none of the national strategiesinvolving livestock production recognise the foundational importance of a coherentFAnGR policy to deliver strategic objectives. This omission needs to be addressed.

5.3 Food safety and genetic diversityA good deal of EU legislation related to Food Safety is aimed at improving animalidentification and traceability. Improved traceability offers benefits to consumers and toanimal health interests alike and diseases such as TB, BSE and Salmonella have addedto the importance of legislation in this area. Improved identification has positivebenefits for the monitoring of FAnGR and is to be welcomed, particularly for breeding

Recommended Action 27: The NSC should engage policy makers implementingpost CAP Reform livestock strategy, at central and regional level, on the importanceof mainstreaming FAnGR policy into all sustainable food and farming strategies.Sustainable use of FAnGR is the starting point for all sustainable livestockproduction chains. The NSC should monitor the impact of CAP reform on FAnGRand alert the relevant policy makers to any corrective action needed.

45


stock. There needs to be improved integration between the various Governmentlivestock databases so that breeding population monitoring can be enhanced. It ishoped that the Defra Livestock Register Project will deliver this in due course (seeRecommended Action 3).

However, the impact of food safety legislation on genetic diversity is limited, with onenotable exception. That is where, to protect human health, precautionary measures aretaken to reduce risk by selective breeding in an animal population. There is a theoreticalrisk of BSE occurring in sheep, which would pose a human health risk. This risk wouldbe greater if the presence of BSE was masked by the occurrence of scrapie in sheep(although tests are now available to distinguish these diseases). Hence, the eradicationof scrapie was seen as a potential benefit in protecting human health, as well as ananimal welfare and economic benefit. As a result of these drivers, the National ScrapiePlan (NSP) in Great Britain, and the Northern Ireland Scrapie Plan (NISP) wereestablished a few years ago to reduce and eventually eradicate scrapie from thenational sheep flocks.

The progressive elimination of genotypes most susceptible to scrapie was a centralfeature of the NSP and NISP when they were first introduced. However, the potentialimpact on a number of mainstream breeds and breeds at risk was recognised to beserious, if not managed appropriately. (The emphasis of these scrapie plans has beenmodified over time, to removing only those genotypes at highest risk, partly because ofthese concerns over the impact in some breeds, and to await the results of research onoptimal approaches to breeding for resistance in populations of different size andresistance status. Also, there are concerns that creating sheep populations that aremost resistant to currently common strains of scrapie may not be the most effectiveway to guard against future strains of the disease agent.) There is commendable actionto conserve lines within breeds that are at risk as a result of breeding policies developedto meet original NSP/NISP guidelines, through the work of the Semen ArchiveManagement Board. But it is imperative that the NSP/NISP are closely monitored toensure that valuable traits are not inadvertently lost from the UK sheep population.

Recommended Action 28: The NSC should continue to actively monitor theimpact of the National Scrapie Plan (NSP) and the Northern Ireland Scrapie Plan(NISP) on genetic diversity in sheep breeds. The findings of research on the impactof the NSP should be fed into policy development of the NSP and future breedingscheme design.

46


Box 10: Government and industry collaboration to protect FAnGRpotentially at risk because of the National Scrapie Plan.

A wide range of sheep industry stakeholders recognised that implementing theNational Scrapie Plan and the Northern Ireland Scrapie Plan posed a risk to someFAnGR. Relevant Government administrations have responded by supportinggenotyping programmes to establish the frequency of genotypes conferringdifferent levels of resistance to scrapie in rare breeds and by establishing a semenarchive, overseen by The UK Semen Archive Management Board (which includes asub-group covering Northern Ireland). This board has wide representation, and is agood example of effective collaboration between Government and industry toprotect FAnGR.

47


Filling of semen straws (Courtesy of Innovis).

Freezing of semen strawsfor storage (Courtesy

of Innovis).

5.4 Rural socio-economic policy5.4.1 Rural Development Plans and genetic resources

European Rural development policy is defined by Council Regulation 1257/1999 andis implemented by Commission Regulation No. 2603/1999 (see below). Each nationwithin the UK has produced its own rural development plan under the auspices ofthe Regulation. As an example the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP)contributes to the delivery of the Government’s Strategy for Sustainable Farming andFood by helping farmers to respond better to consumer requirements and becomemore competitive, diverse, flexible and environmentally responsible. It also provideshelp to rural businesses and communities, which need to adapt and develop. Whilstthere is provision in the Council Regulation for the support of rare breeds in dangerof extinction, the UK had not implemented this measure in any of the original ruraldevelopment plans unlike every other EU Member State except Denmark (which hasintroduced national measures).

However, the introduction of specific measures in England to support native FAnGRunder the Higher Level Environmental Stewardship options for secondary agri-environmental measures during the 2004 mid-term review of the RDR was eventuallyapproved by the Commission in the autumn of 2005. Measures in support of nativecattle grazing and native breeds at risk are now being implemented, so setting aprecedent for future rural development plans in England.

In Scotland a management option, the ‘Retention or Introduction of Cattle of ScottishNative or Traditional Breed(s)’ on small units, was introduced when the RuralStewardship Scheme was launched in 2001. This measure was introduced given thedecline in cattle numbers in the crofting areas of Scotland, recognising the positivebenefits that keeping a herd of cattle can deliver, both directly and indirectly, tobiodiversity and knowing that native or traditional cattle breeds, and first crosses fromthese, are naturally adapted to producing a marketable calf when managed extensively.

A proposal for a new Council Regulation to be introduced in 2007 in support of ruraldevelopment planning by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development(EAFRD, the general rules for which are outlined in Commission Regulation 1698/2005)is now being discussed at Commission and Member State level and it is imperative thatappropriate implementing rules for the optional “stand alone” measure in support ofthe conservation and sustainable use of FAnGR in Axis II (Article 39 – Agri-environmental measures) are incorporated into the implementing Regulation, and thatthe UK incorporates suitable genetic resource measures into the various national ruraldevelopment plans in 2007.

48


www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/docs/default.htm

http://www.europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/l_277/l_27720051021en00010040.pdf

Box 11: Native pigs in sustainable Scottish woodland management

A new rôle for traditional pig breeds is emerging in Scotland. Pigs have beenconsidered important for successful woodland management for centuries, and havecontributed significantly to shaping the historic woodlands in Britain – somethingwhich has been lacking since the right of pannage (the right to feed pigs or otheranimals in woodland) dropped out of common usage. In the last decade, however,the power of hardy pigs has been harnessed for the management of large tracts ofbracken on moorland as a serious alternative to the use of herbicides.

Pigs do not provide an overnight solution, but there is a growing body of evidenceto demonstrate that regular rooting by pigs has the ability to transform moorlandareas dominated by bracken cover. Pigs have the ability to destroy the brackencanopy, break open the mat of decaying debris, and expose the ground to dormantseeds of other plants and the current season’s dispersal. The overall impact is tocreate a mosaic of far greater biodiversity than can be achieved where bracken hasachieved dominance – and is in the longer term more effective than an applicationof chemicals. Traditional breeds of pigs are thought to be better suited to this typeof activity, being hardier and able to subsist in relatively rugged terrain. A furthereconomic benefit is that there is a strong niche market for the meat produced fromthese breeds managed in this way.

49


Pigs can contributesignificantly to re-establishinghistoric woodlands (Courtesyof Dunlossit Estate, Islay).

Breeds such as theTamworth may provide aserious alternative to the

use of herbicides inmoorland area (Courtesy of

Dunlossit Estate, Islay).

5.4.2 Countryside access

The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (also known as CROW) applies in Englandand Wales and extends the public’s ability to enjoy the countryside, whilst providingsafeguards for landowners and occupiers. It creates a new statutory right of access toopen country and registered common land, modernises the rights of way system, givesgreater protection to Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), provides bettermanagement arrangements for Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs), andstrengthens wildlife enforcement legislation. However, whilst there is some protection inthe Act (Article 74) for wild biodiversity, in accordance with the CBD, there is nomention of agricultural biodiversity. Whilst there is no restriction on the keeping ofbreeds that may endanger public safety e.g. horned cattle, farmed wild boar, nativeponies etc., extension of rights of access may create a disincentive to keep certain typesof FAnGR. The (Environment) Northern Ireland Order 2002 offers additional protectionfor designated sites. Neither this order, nor the Scottish Executive’s Land Reform Act,appears to have implications for keeping FAnGR.

Recommended Action 30: The UK National Co-ordinator for FAnGR shouldmonitor legal action taken under Countryside Rights of Way (CROW) in England andWales and any negative impact on the willingness of livestock keepers to conserveFAnGR on their land.

Recommended Action 29: The UK National Co-ordinator for FAnGR should:

• Monitor closely the progress of the new EAFRD proposals, interveningwhere necessary in the negotiations and liaising with policymakers on theinclusion of ‘stand alone’ genetic resource measures (other than headagepayments) into national rural development plans in support of flexibleactions to conserve and utilise FAnGR.

• Liaise with policy makers to ensure that payments supporting endangerednative breeds provided for under agri-environmental measures in the newEAFRD regulation are incorporated into new rural development plans.

50


www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000037.htm

5.5 Environmental policyThere are two strands to environmental policy which impact on livestock productiongenerally. The first is in terms of maintenance of the semi-natural landscapes that owetheir attractiveness and biodiversity to extensive grazing by husbanded animals. Thelegislative impact on FAnGR here is limited except in defining the particular suitability ofcertain listed native breeds for use in agri-environmental schemes in the English RuralDevelopment Plan (see Rural Socio-economic Policy section above).

The second is the management of waste products from livestock which impacts on theenvironment through natural resources, principally air and water. There is a raft of EUand domestic legislation (e.g. the new Groundwater Directive and the IntegratedPollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Regulations) that seeks to control the impact oflivestock production to deliver Government environmental sustainability objectives andEU Biodiversity Targets.

Whilst there is little specific impact of environmental policy on the management of farmanimal genetic resources per se, there may be some breeds, ruminant and monogastric,which more efficiently convert feed and forage into livestock products and therebyreduce the environmental burden caused by waste products such as nitrates, ammoniaand greenhouse gases. More work is needed to characterise breeds for such traits andto incorporate lifecycle nutrient efficiency targets into animal breeding programmes.

In this area there are also clear and demonstrable ways in which Government databasesand monitoring can provide information to allow farmers and breeders to selectmainstream breeds to reduce environmental impact and to better match genotype tothe local environmental conditions. To achieve this substantial environmental benefit,the procedures for environmental monitoring and reporting, and the design and linkingof the associated databases need to be considered.

Recommended Action 31: The UK National Co-ordinator for FAnGR shouldcommission publicly co-funded R&D to model/characterise breeds for their lifecyclenutrient efficiency and to investigate the incorporation of lifecycle nutrient efficiencytraits into breeding programmes in all livestock species.

51


www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/444217/444663/955191/?version=1&lang=_e

www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/444217/444663/298441/?lang=_e

5.6 Animal health and welfare policy5.6.1 Animal Disease regulations and their impact on FAnGR

Disease control is a big issue for FAnGR, not only in the UK but also across Europe andglobally. The EU has an interest in protecting and raising the health status andcondition of farm animals in the Community, whilst permitting intra-Community tradeand imports of animals and animal products in accordance with appropriate healthstandards and international obligations such as those prescribed by the OIE (OfficeInternational des Épizooties).

History has shown that outbreaks of disease, and control measures themselves, canhave a profound effect on breeding programmes and the viability of the breeds, unlessthere are specific exemptions for threatened FAnGR. For example, the recently adoptedFMD Directive (2003/85/EC) provides for special measures for the protection of breeds

Box 12: Loss of Genetic Diversity through FMD

During the FMD epidemic of 2001, several breeds suffered huge losses. Importantbreeding units of many breeds of all affected species (cattle, sheep, pigs) were lost,but the greatest effects were experienced among sheep breeds.

Four breeds lost more than one-third of their total population: the Cheviot,Herdwick and Rough Fell, all locally adapted hill breeds, and the British Milksheep,a more recently derived breed selected for high milk production. About 30,000Herdwicks died during the FMD outbreak, including almost the entire generationof hoggs wintering away from the home farms.

The Herdwick, in particular, illustrates the value of ‘heritage’ breeds. The localadaptation of its flocks to the Cumbrian fells offers environmental and marketingbenefits. The breed is intimately linked with the Lake District, providing a strongmarketing base through this heritage.

52


Locally adapted breedssuch as the Herdwicksuffered severe lossesduring the FMDoutbreak of 2001(Courtesy of RobertGoodison).

at risk and the application of these provisions will need to be reviewed on a regularbasis if they are to be used effectively in our dynamic livestock population. The NSC hasa role to play in defining which breeds should be protected and formulating a legallyrobust definition of a nucleus population essential to the survival of the breed.

The new EU Avian Influenza Directive contains similar provisions for poultry, but aparallel FAnGR policy on poultry should be developed to include an improved data seton UK poultry breeding holdings to be linked to the National Breed Inventory.

The EU has a range of preventative measures in place to counter the risk of (exotic)disease incursion and to limit the spread of diseases (including those already endemic,such as scrapie) within the Community. Such measures include detailed rules on themovement of live animals, genetic material and animal products between MemberStates and third countries.

These policy areas, and the domestic transposition of EU law, can have a significanteffect on the economic viability of FAnGR populations, and therefore warrant closemonitoring of future developments. A good example of this is the application of thenew Bovine Semen (England) Regulations and the associated Bovine Semen Fees(England) Regulations (2004), which had the potential to add cost to on-farm semencollections from native breeds and so incentivise the use of imported semen. Closeconsultation between Government and animal breeding stakeholders has succeeded inreducing the likely impact on the UK’s genetic resources.

In addition to the EU strategy on animal health and welfare, GB has its own AnimalHealth and Welfare Strategy, which sits in parallel with the EU model. The AnimalHealth and Welfare Strategy for Great Britain applies (but is not exclusive) to all farmedlivestock and is aimed at improving animal health and welfare through greater co-operation between stakeholders and Government. Relevant areas of work that mayhave secondary impacts on genetic diversity could include contingency planning for

Recommended Action 33: When the new EU Avian Influenza Directive isimplemented in the UK, the special provisions to protect rare poultry breeds shouldbe transposed into UK legislation. This will require an improved data set on UKpoultry breeding holdings. The NSC, in consultation with relevant speciesassociations, should have a key in advising policymakers on applying these specialmeasures and be involved in the subsequent implementation process.

Recommended Action 32: In respect of the Foot and Mouth Disease (FMD)Directive, the NSC should advise Government on a scientifically and legally robustdefinition of a nucleus unit essential to the survival of the breed, with or withoutcryopreserved genetic material as a backup, particularly where that breed is notnumerically rare but is geographically concentrated.

53


www.eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2006/l_010/l_01020060114en00160065.pdf

www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/int-trde/default.htm

www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/ahws/default.htm

disease outbreaks, veterinary surveillance and promotion of health and welfare per se,improving the infrastructure of disease monitoring and surveillance to facilitate geneticimprovement of host resistance and the identification of more resistant breeds andstrains.

We commented earlier on the role of monitoring and surveillance in the improvementof host resistance and the better understanding of epidemiology.

5.6.2 Animal welfare policy and links with FAnGR policy

The Government takes advice on farm animal welfare issues from the Farm AnimalWelfare Council (FAWC), which produced a report on Welfare Implications of AnimalBreeding and Breeding Technologies in Commercial Agriculture in 2004. A frameworkfor considering welfare in farm animal breeding has been needed for some time andone of the recommendations made in the FAWC report is a call for the creation of anew committee to advise on farm animal breeding and the ethical and welfareimplications of new and existing breeding technologies and programmes. A response tothe report has not yet been published but there is significant overlap with FAnGR policywithin the recommendations.

5.7 Animal breeding, Zootechnics and Genetic Resourcesfor Food and Agriculture

5.7.1 Animal Breeding and Zootechnics

The EU ‘zootechnical’ legislation listed at Annex 6, covers herd book controls, breedsociety recognition, pedigree certification, genetic evaluation and performance testing,passports and the importation of genetic material.

Recommended Action 35: In response to the 2004 Farm Animal Welfare Council(FAWC) Report on the Welfare Implications of Animal Breeding and BreedingTechnologies in Commercial Agriculture, Defra should trigger regular, formalexchanges of views between the NSC and FAWC on livestock breeding technologiesand programmes and their impact on animal welfare.

Recommended Action 34: The UK National Co-ordinator should monitor andcontribute to the development of livestock disease control policies that may impacton FAnGR, and be involved in any changes to parent legislation where appropriate.

54


www.fawc.org.uk/reports.htm

The overarching aim of this legislation is to promote free trade in breeding animals andtheir genetic material, monitor the sustainability of breeding programs and preserve thegenetic resources of Member States. This is, in part, being delivered throughharmonisation and international recognition of breed societies, herd books,performance testing, genetic evaluation and pedigree certificates.

All EU zootechnical legislation has the potential to impact directly on FAnGR and anyfuture developments should be closely monitored and disseminated. The NSC is in anexcellent position not only to inform policy in these areas, but also to facilitate thecommunication and understanding of policies from the centre. This is vital if policies areto be correctly implemented and the NSC is already demonstrating its value herethrough positive dialogue with policy makers and concerned stakeholders.

5.7.2 Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture

In 2004 the EU Commission introduced a new Genetic Resources Regulation(870/2004) on establishing a Community programme on the conservation,characterisation, collection and utilisation of genetic resources in agriculture. TheRegulation provides Commission co-funding for various trans-national projects, whichencourage co-operation and collaborative-targeted action between member states onpractical in situ and ex situ conservation projects for plants, animal and microbialgenetic resources used for food and agriculture. There are real cost benefits to begained in European collaboration on characterisation and conservation projects and it isimportant that UK NGOs, research institutes and Government are fully aware of thevalue that can be added to national programmes by participating in initiatives atEuropean level.

The important contribution that Defra makes to the development of Europeancollaboration on FAnGR and development of Commission legislation supporting geneticdiversity in livestock breeds is recognised by both FAO and the EU Commission. It isimportant that this contribution continues especially through active participation inthe European Regional Focal Point (ERFP) for FAnGR which has an annual workshopalongside the European Association of Animal Production (EAAP) annual meetings.

Recommended Action 37: NGOs and research providers should be encouraged toparticipate in trans-national FAnGR projects under the new European GeneticResources Regulation 870/2004. Defra and the Devolved Administrations should,wherever possible, make match funding available for suitable projects.

Recommended Action 36: The NSC, through the UK National Co-ordinatorfor FAnGR, should carefully monitor developments in zootechnical legislation,encourage deeper integration between zootechnics and FAnGR policy anddevelop better communication with other stakeholders such as breed societies.

55


www.europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2004/l_162/l_16220040430en00180028.pdf

http://www.rfp-europe.org/template02.php?lang=en&id=7

The ERFP is a network of National Co-ordinators officially appointed by the 37 membernations of the UN in Europe, under the auspices of the FAO Commission on GeneticResources for Food and Agriculture. It forms the hub of collaboration and exchange ofinformation on FAnGR in Europe. The ERFP is now recognised (with technical supportfrom the EAAP) by the EU Commission as the centre of expertise on FAnGR in Europeand has an influential voice in Brussels in the development of policy in areas impactingon the management of genetic diversity in EU Member States.

Recommended Action 38: The UK National Co-ordinator for FAnGR shouldcontinue to play an active part at global and European regional level, throughexisting FAO structures such as the European Regional Focal Point for FAnGR (ERFP),in the development of a sustainable policy on farm animal genetic diversity.

56


1. Hall, S.J.G. and Clutton-Brock, J. (1989). Two hundred years of British FarmLivestock. British Museum (Natural History), London, UK.

2. Simm, G. (1998) Genetic improvement of cattle and sheep. CABI Publishing,Wallingford.

3. Cardellino, R.A. (2004). Conservation of farm animal genetic resources – a globalview. In Farm Animal Genetic Resources. British Society of Animal ScienceOccasional Publication No. 30 (eds. G. Simm, B. Villanueva, K.D. Sinclair and S.Townsend),pp. 1-14.

4. Mercer, J.T., Lewis, R.M. and Alderson, G.L.H. (1998). The adaptation of rarebreeds of British livestock to different environments: A review. Publ. MAFF, SAC, RBST.

5. Rauw, W.M., Kanis, E., Noordhuizen-Stassen, E.N. and Grommers, F.J. (1998).Undesirable side effects of selection for high production efficiency in farmanimals: a review. Livestock Production Science, 56, 15-33.

6. Villanueva, B., Pong-Wong, R., Woolliams, J.A. and Avendaño, S. (2004).Managing genetic resources in selected and conserved populations. In FarmAnimal Genetic Resources. British Society of Animal Science Occasional PublicationNo. 30 (eds. G. Simm, B. Villanueva, K.D. Sinclair and S. Townsend), pp. 113–131.

7. Woolliams, J.A. (2004). Managing populations at risk. In Farm Animal GeneticResources. British Society of Animal Science Occasional Publication No. 30 (eds. G. Simm, B. Villanueva, K.D. Sinclair, and S. Townsend), pp85–106.

8. Lömker, R. and Simon, D.L. (1994). Costs of and inbreeding in conservationstrategies for endangered breeds of cattle. In Proceedings of the 5th WorldCongress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Vol. 21, pp. 393-396.

9. FAO (1998). Secondary guidelines for development of national farm animalgenetic resource management plans: management of small populations at risk.FAO, Rome Italy.

10. Woolliams, J.A., Berg, Maki-Tanila, A., Meuwissen, T.H.E and Fimland, E. (2005)Sustainable Management of Animal Genetic Resources. Nordic Gene Bank FarmAnimals. ISBN 92-893-1089-8.

57


6 References

Chair:

Professor Geoff SimmScottish Agricultural College

Universities and Research Institutes:

Professor Stephen HallUniversity of Lincoln

Professor John WoolliamsRoslin Institute

NGOs and Species Associations:

Mr Lawrence Alderson, CBEThe Rare Breeds Survival Trust

Professor Dianna Bowles / Mr Sam JonesThe Sheep Trust

Mr Marcus BatesBritish Pig Association

Mr Tim BrigstockeRoyal Association of British Dairy Farmers

Mr Peter DeanThe British Horse Society

Ms Kim-Marie HaywoodNational Beef Association

Mr Andrew SheppyCobthorn Trust

Mr John Thorley / Mr Peter Morris National Sheep Association

Devolved Administrations:

Dr Maurice McCoyDARDNI

Mr Roy PatersonSEERAD

Mr Chris LeaWAG

Defra Secretariat:

Mr Mike RoperUK National Co-ordinator for FAnGR

Mr Philip HamblingTechnical and Policy Adviser

Miss Emma BoydExecutive Support

Mr Matthew MahonyExecutive Support and Publishing

58


Annex 1: Membership of NSC

Terms of Reference1. The scope of the Committee shall be to encourage the conservation and

sustainable use of farm animal genetic resources, including cattle, sheep, goats,pigs, poultry and equines but excluding wild animals, pets and other minordomestic species.

2. The Committee shall report to Defra, and the Devolved Administrations inSEERAD, WAG and DARDNI as appropriate, through the UK National Co-ordinatorfor FAnGR (located in Defra) who will act as Secretariat to the Committee.

3. The Committee’s principal task will be to set priorities for and advise on theimplementation of the UK National Action Plan on FAnGR as recommended in theUK Country Report on FAnGR 2002.

4. The Committee will also provide technical advice on all policy matters relating tothe conservation and sustainable use of FAnGR to policy makers in Defra and thedevolved administrations, and disseminate that advice through relevant non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and the livestock industry.

5. The Committee will act as a forum for stakeholders concerned with issuesassociated with the conservation and sustainable use of FAnGR.

6. The Committee will set R&D priorities in the area of FAnGR and advise relevantDefra and devolved administration policy Divisions of those priorities.

7. The Committee will advise on co-ordinated UK in situ and ex situ conservationprogrammes for FAnGR and evaluate their implementation.

8. The Committee will liaise closely with comparative national committees concernedwith genetic resources in food and agriculture in the plant and microbialkingdoms.

59


Annex 2: Remit of NSC

Working definition of nativeThe following tests have been used to determine whether or not a breed is to beconsidered native:

The breed satisfies the criteria for inclusion in the UK National Breed Inventorydescribed in Recommended Action 4; and

• breed history documents the breed origin within the UK (including fromamalgamation of native breeds), and the UK has formed the primaryenvironment for the development of the breed; and

• breed history documents its presence in the UK for 40 years plus 6generations; and

• not more than 20% of the genetic contributions come from animals bornoutside the UK (other than those imported for an approved conservationproject) in any generation for the last 40 years plus 6 generations.

Working definition of feralThe following series of tests have been used to define feral FAnGR in the UK NationalBreed Inventory:

• The breed itself satisfies the criteria for inclusion in the UK inventory; and

• the breed is not subject to routine handling of any kind; and

• more than 90% of the population have been born to feral parents, over twogenerations*.

*Why two generations? This ensures that the population, which at any given time willconsist of animals at different stages of life, will go through at least one complete lifecycle of birth, growth, reproduction, and death as a feral animal. Ideally this wouldencompass 100% of the population but to allow an occasional and rare unintendedintroduction to be assimilated, a margin of error has been allowed for so that only 90%need satisfy these requirements without compromising the status.

We intend the definition to apply to existing populations because ‘rewilding’ haspotential welfare implications.

60


Annex 3: Working definitions of native and feral

• Herd-book breeding population (male and female) including:

– Adequacy of assessment through the herd-book.

– Effective population size.

– Cross referencing data from other organisations e.g. BCMS, NGOs, levyboards, commercial databases etc.

– Breed Society prediction of population trends.

– Use of technologies that may accelerate inbreeding, especially in smallpopulations.

• Geographical concentration, using new measures to describe it (seeRecommended Action 13).

• Degree of crossbreeding.

• Genetic diversity between and within breeds.

• Any evidence of environmental adaptation and genotype-environmentinteraction.

• Economic relevance:

– Evaluated with regard to conventional farming practice.

– Evaluated taking into account the full range of diversification (includingall aspects of tourism) available to farmers.

• Human resources and demography of ownership of the breed.

• International populations.

• Foreseen external changes that will influence future endangerment (e.g. NSPfor sheep).

• Initiatives that may influence future endangerment (e.g. participation inconservation schemes).

• Cryo-conserved gametes (semen, oocytes, embryos).

61


Annex 4: Proposed list of data for collection in the StandardisedTemplate

62


Annex 5: Prioritised list of legislation for action related to FAnGR

The following table outlines the EU legislation that is expected to affect farm animalbreeding the most and those that will represent key areas of work for the NSC in theforeseeable future.

Where-

★★★ = significant input expected or required★★ = monitoring with some input★ = some monitoring needed

Subject Details Importance

★★★

★★★Council Directive 2005/94/EC – on Communitymeasures for the control of avian influenza

Previous Directive:-

Council Directive 92/40/EEC of 19 May 1992 –Introducing Community measures for the control ofavian influenza

Amended by 194NN01/05/E (Norway, Austria,Finland, Sweden), 103TN02/06/B1 (Czech Republic,Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta,Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia), 303R0806 (procedural;not relevant)

Consolidated Version

AI Directive-disease control

Council Regulation (EC) No 870/2004 of 24 April2004 – establishing a Community programme onthe conservation, characterisation, collection andutilisation of genetic resources in agriculture andrepealing Regulation (EC) No 1467/94 (Text withEEA relevance)

Genetic ResourceRegulations


★★★

★★★

★★★

★★★

★★★Council Directive 2003/85/EC of 29 September2003 – on Community measures for the control offoot-and-mouth disease repealing Directive85/511/EEC and Decisions 89/531/EEC and91/665/EEC and amending Directive 92/46/EEC(Text with EEA relevance)

New FMDDirective

2002/1003/EC: Commission Decision of 18December 2002 – laying down minimumrequirements for a survey of prion proteingenotypes of sheep breeds (Text with EEA relevance)(notified under document number C(2002) 5102)

National ScrapiePlan –surveyrequirements

2003/100/EC: Commission Decision of 13February 2003 – laying down minimumrequirements for the establishment of breedingprogrammes for resistance to transmissiblespongiform encephalopathies in sheep (Text withEEA relevance)

National ScrapiePlan

Regulation (EC) No 999/2001 – Of the EuropeanParliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001laying down rules for the prevention, control anderadication of certain transmissible spongiformencephalopathies

As amended

TSE Regulations

Council Directive 92/66/EEC of 14 July 1992 –Introducing Community measures for the control ofNewcastle disease

Amended by 194NN01/05/E (Norway, Austria,Finland, Sweden), 103TN02/06/B1 (Czech Republic,Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta,Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia), 303R0806 (procedural;not relevant)


Newcastle DiseaseDirective- diseasecontrol

63



★★

★★

★★

★★Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20September 2005 on support for rural developmentby the European Agricultural Fund for RuralDevelopment(EAFRD)

Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2603/1999 of 9December 1999 – Laying down rules for thetransition to the rural development supportprovided by Council Regulation (EC) No1257/1999

Amended by 300R1929 (transformation of agri-environmental commitments), 301R2055(application deadline extension), 303R0568(minor language correction)

Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 of 17 May1999 on support for rural development from theEuropean Agricultural Guidance and GuaranteeFund (EAGGF) and amending and repealing certainRegulations Official Journal L 160 , 26/06/1999 p.0080 – 0101

RuralDevelopmentRegulation

Council Directive 2004/68/EC of 26 April 2004 –laying down animal health rules for the importationinto and transit through the Community of certainlive ungulate animals, amending Directives90/426/EEC and 92/65/EEC and repealing Directive72/462/EEC (Text with EEA relevance)

Live animaltransport

21978A1117(01) – European Convention for theprotection of animals kept for farming purposes

21992A1231(01) – Protocol of amendment to theEuropean Convention for the protection of animalkept for Farming Purposes

Animal Welfare

Council Directive 98/58/EC of 20 July 1998 –Concerning the protection of animals kept forfarming purposes

Amended by 303R0806 (not relevant).


Animal Welfare

64



★★

★

★21998A0421(01)

Agreement between the European Community andthe United States of America on sanitary measuresto protect public and animal health in trade in liveanimals and animal products

Amended by 203A1129(01)

Trans-AtlanticTrade

93/626/EEC: Council Decision of 25 October1993 – concerning the conclusion of theConvention on Biological Diversity

(applies to domesticated species also, includinggenetic material)

CBD

2004/639/EC: Commission Decision of 6September 2004 – laying down the importationconditions of semen of domestic animals of thebovine species (Text with EEA relevance)

Trade inBovine semen

65


Bovine animals (cattle, buffaloes)Basic Directive Council Directive 77/504/EEC

Recognition of breeding organisations Commission Decision 84/247/EEC

Entering in herd books Commission Decision 84/419/EEC

Pedigree certificates Animals Commission Decision 86/404/EECSemen, embryos Commission Decision 88/124/EEC Ova Commission Decision 96/80/EC

Performance testing and genetic evaluation Commission Decision 90/256/EEC Commission Decision 94/515/EC

INTERBULL Council Decision 96/463/EC

Acceptance for breeding Council Directive 87/328/EEC

Porcine animals (pigs)Basic Directive Council Directive 88/661/EEC

Recognition of breeding Pure-bred Commission Decision 89/501/EECorganisations Hybrid Commission Decision 89/504/EEC

Entering in herd books Pure-bred Commission Decision 89/502/EECHybrid Commission Decision 89/505/EEC

Pedigree certificates Pure-bred Commission Decision 89/503/EECHybrid Commission Decision 89/506/EEC

Performance testing and genetic evaluation Commission Decision 89/507/EEC

Acceptance for breeding Pure-bred Council Directive 90/118/EECHybrid Council Directive 90/119/EEC

Ovine and caprine animals (sheep and goats)Basic Directive Council Directive 89/361/EEC


Entering in herd books Commission Decision 90/255/EEC

66


Annex 6: Zootechnics Legislation

Pedigree certificates Commission Decision 90/258/EEC

Performance testing and genetic evaluation Commission Decision 90/256/EEC

Acceptance for breeding Commission Decision 90/257/EEC

Equine animals (horses, donkeys)Basic Directive Council Directive 90/427/EEC


Co-ordination between breeding organisations Commission Decision 92/354/EEC

Entering in herd books Commission Decision 96/78/EC

Identification document (passport) Commission Decision 93/623/EEC

Pedigree certificate for semen, ova, embryos Commission Decision 96/79/EC

Horse competitionsBasic Directive Council Directive 90/428/EEC

Collection of data Commission Decision 92/216/EEC

Co-ordinating Authorities of Equine Competitions

Other breeding animalsBasic Directive Council Directive 91/174/EEC

Import from third countriesBasic Directive Council Directive 94/28/EC

Pedigree certificates Commission Decision 96/509/ECCommission Decision 96/510/EC

67


AI Artificial Insemination

BCMS British Cattle Movement Service

BLUP Best linear unbiased prediction

BPA British Pig Association

CAP Common Agricultural Policy

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity (also the ‘Rio Convention’)

CROW Countryside Rights of Way Act (England and Wales)

DAD-IS Domestic Animal Diversity Information System (run by the FAO)

DARD (NI) Department of Agriculture and Rural DevelopmentNorthern Ireland

Defra UK Government Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

EAFRD European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development

EBLEX English Beef and Lamb Executive

EFAB-IS European Farm Animal Biodiversity Information System

ERFP European Regional Focal Point (for FAnGR)

EU European Union

FAO Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations

FAnGR Farm Animal Genetic Resources

FAWC Farm Animal Welfare Council

FMD Foot and Mouth Disease

FWAG Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group

GRFA Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture

HCC Hybu Cig Cymru (Meat Production Wales)

IGD Institute of Grocery Distribution

IPR Intellectual Property Rights

LEAF Linking Environment and Farming

MDC Milk Development Council

MLC Meat and Livestock Commission

MoDAD Molecular Domestic Animal Diversity

NAP National Action Plan on Farm Animal Genetic Resources

NAWAD National Assembly for Wales Agriculture Department

68


Annex 7: Abbreviations and Acronyms

NBA National Beef Association

NISP Northern Ireland Scrapie Plan

NPA National Pig Association

NSA National Sheep Association

NSP National Scrapie Plan (GB)

NGO Non-Governmental Organisation

NSC National Steering Committee for Farm Animal Genetic Resources

QMS Quality Meat Scotland

RBST Rare Breed Survival Trust

RABDF Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers

RDAs Regional Development Associations

RPG (Sustainable Farming and Food) Research Priorities Group

SAC Scottish Agricultural College

SEERAD Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Affairs Department

SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest

WAG Welsh Assembly Government

WIGI Wiltshire Interactive Grazing Initiative

69


Section 2.1.1UK Country Reportwww.defra.gov.uk/farm/policy/geneticresources/animalgenetics.pdf

Section 2.1.2Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio Convention)www.biodiv.org

FAO’s Strategy for the Management of FAnGRhttp://www.fao.org/dad-is

COP VII/III of the CBDwww.biodiv.org/decisions/default.aspx?m=COP-07&id=7740&lg=0

Section 2.1.3Defra’s Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food in Englandhttp://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/policy/sustain/pdf/sffs.pdf

SEERAD’s Forward Strategy for Scottish Agriculture: Next Stepshttp://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/94965/0022832.pdf

Welsh Assembly’s Farming for the Futurewww.countryside.wales.gov.uk/fe/master.asp?n1=4&n2=52

DARD, Northern Ireland Strategic Plan 2006-2011www.dardni.gov.uk/dard-strategic-plan-2006-2011.pdf

Section 3.2.2UK Country Report 2002, containing the UK’s breed databasewww.defra.gov.uk/farm/policy/geneticresources/animalgenetics.pdf

Section 3.2.3European Zootechnical Legislationwww.europa.eu.int/comm/food/animal/zootechnics/legislation_en.htm

70


Annex 8: Web-links – in order of appearance


http://www.biodiv.org

http://www.fao.org/dad-is

http://www.biodiv.org/decisions/default.aspx?m=COP-07&id=7740&lg=0

http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/policy/sustain/pdf/sffs.pdf

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/94965/0022832.pdf

http://www.countryside.wales.gov.uk/fe/master.asp?n1=4&n2=52

http://www.dardni.gov.uk/dard-strategic-plan-2006-2011.pdf


http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/food/animal/zootechnics/legislation_en.htm

Section 3.3.2German GRFA web portalwww.genres.de/genres-e.htm

French GRFA web portalwww.brg.prd.fr/brg/ecrans/accueil_An.htm

Section 4.3UK Country Report 2002, Appendix 3www.defra.gov.uk/farm/policy/geneticresources/animalgenetics.pdf

The Sheep Trustwww.thesheeptrust.org

RBST http://www.rbst.org.uk/

Section 4.6.1The Grazing Animals Project/FACTwww.fact-group.org

Section 4.6.2The Limestone County Projectwww.limestone-country.org.uk

The Wiltshire Interactive Grazing Initiativewww.rspb.org.uk/england/southwest/conservation/wigi.asp

The RBST Traditional Breeds Meat Marketing Schemehttp://www.rbst.org.uk/rare-breeds-meat/main.php

The British Pig Association’s Pedigree Pork initiativewww.britishpigs.org.uk/pork.htm

Section 4.6.3The Science, Engineering, Technology and Mathematics Networkhttp://www.setnet.org.uk/

71


http://www.genres.de/genres-e.htm

http://www.brg.prd.fr/brg/ecrans/accueil_An.htm


http://www.thesheeptrust.org

http://www.rbst.org.uk

http://www.fact-group.org

http://www.limestone-country.org.uk

http://www.rspb.org.uk/england/southwest/conservation/wigi.asp

http://www.rbst.org.uk/rare-breeds-meat/main.php

http://www.britishpigs.org.uk/pork.htm

http://www.setnet.org.uk

Section 5.2UK Country Reportwww.defra.gov.uk/farm/policy/geneticresources/animalgenetics.pdf

Section 5.4.1Information on the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP)www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/docs/default.htm

Commission Regulation 1698/2005http://www.europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/l_277/l_27720051021en00010040.pdf

Section 5.4.2Countryside Rights of Way Actwww.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000037.htm

Section 5.5Groundwater Directivewww.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/444217/444663/955191/?version=1&lang=_e

The Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Regulationswww.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/444217/444663/298441/?lang=_e

Section 5.6.1Avian Influenza Directive – EU Official Journalwww.eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2006/l_010/l_01020060114en00160065.pdf

Rules on the movement of live animals, genetic material and animal products betweenMember Stateswww.defra.gov.uk/animalh/int-trde/default.htm

The Animal Health and Welfare Strategy for Great Britainwww.defra.gov.uk/animalh/ahws/default.htm

72



http://www.defra.gov.uk/erdp/docs/default.htm

http://www.europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2005/l_277/l_27720051021en00010040.pdf

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/20000037.htm

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/444217/444663/955191/?version=1&lang=_e

http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/444217/444663/298441/?lang=_e

http://www.eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/site/en/oj/2006/l_010/l_01020060114en00160065.pdf

http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/int-trde/default.htm

http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/ahws/default.htm

Section 5.6.22004 FAWC Reportwww.fawc.org.uk/reports.htm

Section 5.7.2Genetic Resources Regulation 870/2004www.europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2004/l_162/l_16220040430en00180028.pdf

European Regional Focal Point (ERFP)http://www.rfp-europe.org/template02.php?lang=en&id=7

73


http://www.fawc.org.uk/reports.htm

http://www.europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2004/l_162/l_16220040430en00180028.pdf

http://www.rfp-europe.org/template02.php?lang=en&id=7

Produced by the Departmentfor Environment, Food andRural Affairs

© Crown copyright 2006PB 12190

Printed on material that contains100% recycled fibre for uncoatedpaper and a minimum of 75%recycled fibre for coated paperwww.defra.gov.uk

http://www.defra.gov.uk

uk national action plan on farm animal genetic resources

Documents